NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. PHULMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by New India Assurance Co. Ltd. against order dated 15.12.1993 passed by the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') vide which a sum of Rs. 76,000 was awarded to the claimants besides interest and penalty.

(2.) The facts, which are relevant for the decision of the present appeal, are that the claimants Phulma, etc., had filed a petition before the Commissioner under the Act for the grant of compensation to the extent of Rs. 3,00,000 against Bhagat Ram (owner) and New India Assurance Co. Ltd., insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident resulting in the death of Balak Ram deceased. It was alleged in the petition that the accident in question had taken place on 8.8.1986 and that Balak Ram deceased was employed as a driver in the truck owned by Bhagat Ram and he was drawing a salary of Rs. 2,100 per month and was aged 36 years at the time of accident and that as a result of the said accident he died on the same day. Claimants claimed Rs. 3,00,000 as compensation for the death of deceased, alleging therein that he had died at the spot during the course of his employment. It was further alleged that the claimants had previously filed a petition under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1939 Act') and that the same was dismissed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal holding that the deceased was driving the said vehicle at the time of the accident. Since the petition filed by the claimants was barred by limitation, an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act was also filed seeking condonation of delay in filing the petition.

(3.) The petition and the application were contested by the owner and the insurer by filing replies. It was alleged by the insurance company that since the petition filed by claimants before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal was dismissed, the present petition under the Act was not maintainable. It was further alleged that the truck in question was not insured on 8.8.1986 but was in fact insured on 9.8.1986 after the accident and as such there was no valid cover note or valid insurance policy in respect of the vehicle in question at the time of the accident. It was also alleged that no case was made out for condoning the delay in filing the present petition.