ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY Vs. UMRAVATI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the Judgment/Award dated 4th August, 2010 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, Jamshedpur in connection with W.C.A. Case No. 6 of 2008, whereby the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have been directed to be paid Rs. 4,53,820 as compensation within 45 days from the date of order, failing which the appellant shall have to pay interest @ 12% per annum. The brief facts behind institution of this case is that Niraj Mishra was employed as a driver of Indica car bearing registration No. JH05L-8221. On 6th February, 2007 the aforesaid vehicle driven by Niraj Mishra met with an accident and Niraj Mishra sustained injuries and died.

(2.) The appellant has assailed the impugned judgment/award mainly on the ground that the vehicle bearing registration No. JH05L-8221 is owned by respondent No. 3 who happens to be own brother of deceased Niraj Mishra and the story of employment of the deceased by his brother has been cooked up only to lay a claim after his death. The claimants/respondents have not furnished any document or express agreement that Niraj Mishra was employed under owner of the vehicle, Rakesh Mishra. In this case, the learned Counsel has relied on a judgment reported in the case of Gottumukkala Appala Narsimha Raju and Ors. v. National Insurance Company Ltd., 2007 13 SCC 446. It is contended that Hon'ble Apex Court has held that story of employment of husband by the wife is nothing but a concoction only to get compensation after death of the husband. The facts of the case in hand is almost similar and therefore the amount awarded is liable to be set aside.

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents/claimant Nos. 1 and 2 has opposed the argument and submitted that the evidence was adduced before the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation that deceased Niraj Mishra was employed as a driver of Indica car bearing registration No. JH05L-8221, owned by Rakesh Mishra. The judgment referred to above is not applicable in view of the facts appearing in the case in hand. There are many examples where unemployed brothers are employed by other brother who is having means. I have gone through the impugned award and the materials placed before me. I do not think that there is any impediment in providing employment by one brother to another brother, if the former is having sufficient means. If any business is run by any brother he would have his first choice to have assistance or provide employment to his near and dear. Considering aforesaid view, I do not think that argument advanced by learned Counsel appearing for the appellant is tenable and that would be the cogent ground for setting aside the impugned award.