LAWS(JHAR)-2008-2-1

DILIP PATWARI Vs. MALTI DEVI

Decided On February 20, 2008
DILIP PATWARI Appellant
V/S
MALTI DEVI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal at the instance of the owner of the vehicle is directed against the award passed by Mr. Mahesh Prasad Sinha, Presiding Officer, labour Court, Deoghar in W. C. Case No. 2 of 2004 on 27. 8. 2005 whereby a sum of rs. 90,088. 80 has been awarded together with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum.

(2.) THIS case has a chequered history.

(3.) THE claim case was filed by claimant in the year 1989 for grant of compensation on the ground that deceased was a driver in maxi taxi bearing registration No. BRL 6311 which met with an accident while he was on duty on the said vehicle. In the claim case originally, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. was made as insurer of the said vehicle and as such the said insurance company was impleaded as party in the claim case. Thereafter, the said insurance company denied the insurance of the vehicle. Thereafter in 1990 Oriental Fire and genl. Ins. Co. Ltd. was impleaded as party by the claimant who also denied the insurance of the vehicle with the said insurance company. In 1990 the appellant, owner of the vehicle, appeared and it was disclosed that the vehicle was insured with United india Insurance Co. Ltd. In 1999 the labour court, however, passed an ex pane award against United India Insurance Co. Ltd. The said ex parte award was set aside at the instance of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was given to the insurance company. Thereafter, the matter was taken up on merit. In the show-cause filed by United india Insurance Co. Ltd. as usual there was evasive denial of insurance of the vehicle stating, inter alia, that in absence of any policy, the insurance company is not in a position to either accept or deny the vehicle which was insured. But the owner of the vehicle consistently pleaded that the vehicle was insured with United India Insurance Co. Ltd. by giving policy particulars. However, owner of the vehicle failed to produce the insurance policy. As a result of which award was passed against the owner of the vehicle.