NEW ASIATIC INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. KULWANTI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under S. 33 of the Workmens Compensation Act against the order of the Commissioner directing payment of a compensation of Rs. 1500/ - by the non -applicants to the applicant The appellant namely, the New Asiatic Insurance Co., was non -applicant No. 2 before the Commissioner. The first respondent in the appeal, Sh. Kulwanti Devi, was the applicant before the Commissioner. The second respondent, Satish Chandra Sethi. was non -applicant No. 1 before the Commissioner.

(2.) RAM Lal, husband of respondent No. 1 was employed as a cleaner in truck No. J and K 2028 which is alleged to be owned by Satish Chandra, the second respondent. The truck met with an accident which resulted in the death of Ramlal, His widow Sh. Kulwanti Devi thereupon applied for compensation under the provisions of the Workmens Compensation Act against the employer, Satish Chandra (Respondent 2), and against the New Asiatic Insurance Co., the appellant. The Insurance Company was impleaded on the ground that the truck in which the deceased husband of the applicant (first respondent) was employed was insured with it. The employer did not raise any serious contention to tho payment of compensation, but the Insurance Company denied its liability to pay compensation. The Commissioner found that the applicant (first respondent) was entitled to a sum of Rs. 1500/ - as compensation and directed that it should be paid to her with costs by the employer (second respondent), and by the Insurance Company, appellant. The Insurance Company has preferred this appeal against this order in so tar as it is affected by it.

(3.) THE contention of the appellant company is that no order ought to have been passed by the Commissioner against it. It is urged that the order was not warranted by any provision of the Workmens Compensation Act. The only provision in the Act fastening liability upon an insurer is S. 16. It is common ground that the provisions of that section are not attracted to this case. It follows that S. 16, has no application here. And there is no other provision under which the appellant ca be made liable under that Act.