NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY Vs. KHANDDO LAMA & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal is directed against the order of 7.12.2009, rendered by the learned Commissioner, for Employee's Compensation, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P., while his exercising jurisdiction under the Employee's Compensation Act, whereby, he assessed compensation in a sum of Rs. 4,01,300/- vis-a-vis the dependents/successors-in-interests, of the deceased employee.

(2.) The learned counsel for the appellant, submits, that one Sh. Cherring Rigzin was not the employer of the deceased workman, one Babu Lama. He cements his submission by alluding to an echoing occurring in the cross-examination of PW3, qua her deceased husband being under the employment of one Gialson, with whom, the insurer never executed any binding contract of insurance, thereupon the fastening of the apposite indemnificatory liability(s) upon the insurance company, hence suffering from a gross patent illegality. The aforesaid submissions' impinge upon the crucial imperative statutory fact, of, at the relevant point of time, the predecessor-in-interest of the claimants, holding employment under one Chhering Rigzin, besides only upon rendition of an affirmative verdict qua the aforesaid trite statutory fact, would, render the fastening of apposite indemnificatory liabilities upon the insurance company, to hold validity.

(3.) As aforestated, though, the aforesaid echoings displaying qua purported lack of any subsisting contract of employment existing inter-se the purported employer of the deceased workman with the insurance company, whereas, uncontrovertedly an apposite validly executed contract of insurance standing entered inter-se deceased respondent No.1 and the insurer, do find occurrence, in a part of the crossexamination of PW-3, yet, conclusive clinching reliance cannot be placed thereon, given the aforesaid echoings standing succeeded by the widow of the deceased workman, subsequently making articulations, of her deceased husband 5-6 years prior to hers' rendering her testification hence holding employment under one Gialson, thereupon an inference emerges, of, with the relevant mishap occurring in the year 2003, hence the period whereat the deceased workman held employment under one Gialson, not, appertaining to the time contemporaneous to the occurrence of the ill-fated occurrence, rendering hence the aforesaid admission to be insignificant, in firmly pronouncing besides resting the aforesaid crucial statutory fact.