SMT. PARWATI DEVI Vs. BRANCH MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for O.P. No. 1 on the aforesaid review petition.

(2.) The petitioner has filed this review petition to review the judgment dtd. 11/5/2018 passed by this Court in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 17 of 2012, whereby this Court finding appellant/O.P. No. 1 United India Insurance Company Limited not liable to pay compensation to the claimant indemnifying the owner of the vehicle exonerated it from the liability of payment of compensation to the claimant and set aside the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the deceased was travelling on the trailor, which is hailing to Sri. P.K. Jha, brother of the deceased and there has been partition between the deceased and his brother preceding to his death in accident and the deceased was travelling on the said vehicle in his separate status and entity as a labourer, so he had not stepped into the shoe of the owner of the vehicle rather he happens to be a third party of the case. It is further submitted that as the offending vehicle was insured and the insurance policy was valid and enforceable at the time of accident, hence the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the claimant, in case of death of the deceased hence the impugned judgment passed by this Court is liable to be reviewed, holding the insurance company liable for the payment of compensation.

(3.) Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the O.P. No. 1 that the tractor and trailor both were hailing to father of the deceased, who happens to be its registered owner. The petitioner has neither taken any such case that the aforesaid trailor is hailing to brother of the deceased nor has adduced any evidence either in this Court or before the learned Tribunal and finding the deceased to have stepped into shoe of his father by travelling on the said trailor, who has died in accident during the course of travelling, this Court has rightly found Insurancy Company not liable to pay compensation as the owner of the vehicle and claimant both cannot be one and the same person. It is further submitted that even if the trailor is hailing to brother of the deceased, in that case also, the deceased would be considered to have stepped into the shoe of his brother and he does not happen to be a third party rather owner of the trailor. Hence, in that case also, Insurance company is not liable to pay compensation to the claimant. It is further submitted that the aforesaid tractor and trailor was insured by the appellant under the Act only policy. As the vehicle was insured only under the Act only policy, it has not covered the risk of the owner of the vehicle in question. It is also submitted that there is no error apparent on the face of the record in passing the impugned judgment. The petitioner has virtually filed appeal assailing the impugned judgment of this Court in the guise of review which is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.