ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. NARINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Oriental Insurance Company Limited is in first appeal against the award dated 20th May, 2009 passed by the learned Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Ropar which awards Rs.3,94,120/ - along with interest @12% per annum to the claimants from the date of filing of claim under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 (for short "the Act").

(2.) THE question raised in appeal is that the Insurance Company was not liable to pay compensation to the claimants/dependents following the death of Sarabjeet Singh who was employed as a driver of a truck owned by Amarjeet Singh respondent No.1. The story is that the truck had broken down and needed repair for a broken Axel. Sarabjeet Singh left on a motor cycle to find a mechanic for repair of truck. While he was astride, a cow suddently appeared in front of him and to avoid it he lost his balance, fell down and suffered multiple grievous injuries on his body as a result of the accident. He was taken to Civil Hospital, Khanna where he was declared dead.

(3.) ON notice issued to the owner and Insurance Company it put in appearance before the Commissioner and filed reply. The owner of the truck admitted in his written statement that the deceased was employed by him as a driver of the truck which had broken down. He had purchased the truck from one Jagdish Lal, the previous owner. He stated that he paid the deceased Rs.4,000/ - per month as salary and Rs.50/ - per day as diet money to ply the vehicle. The vehicle was insured with the appellant/co -defendant. The Insurance Company contested the case and alleged that at the time of death Sarabjeet Singh was not employed with the insured. The insurer was not informed of the employment nor had the insured Trucker submitted employment record including salary certificate etc. of the deceased to it to establish employment relationship to be covered by the insurance policy. It is also alleged that Sarabjeet Singh was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of the alleged accident which was in violation of the conditions of the policy of insurance. In the main, it was contended that in any case the deceased did not die during and in the course of employment with the 1 st respondent. There was no proof of the same and, therefore, the insurer was not liable to indemnify the owner of the truck. It was, however, not disputed that the truck was insured with the appellant company.