?(<^.^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M^A. (C) No. Wi / 2010 APPELLANTS/ 1 Viresh Kumar S/o Khemraj S i ngh, [on - Applicarits ^ , , , ^, aged about 30 years, ^.<^'Y08es ^y/ aged£ ...•^"^,^-" .^•^•^ ^•^^^ ^^TT.-'" ?.i'-'° ^Sf^ 2^/ Yogesh Kumar S/o Khemraj Singh, aboLit 27 years, Both R/o Village - Dhandhani,Police Station & Tahsil - Navagarh, District - Dui-g (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS/ 11. Aasha Chouhan Wd/o Kuber Singh ^PPLICANTS Chouhan.aged about 29 years, 2] Mordhwaj S/o Kuber Singh Chouhan, aged about 10 years, Minor 3J^ Gopi Kishan S/.o Kuber Singh Choiihan, aged about 3 years, Minor / / Padmini D/o Kuber Singh Chouhan, aged about 5 years, Minor Respondcnt no. 2, 3, & 4 minor, throitgh the'ir natural guardian i. e. mother namely Aasha Chouhan Wd/o Kuber Singh Chouhan A II above R/o Viltage - Navagaon (Ganesh)/Police Station & l^ahsil - Navagarh, District - Durg (C.G.) (C.G.) 5 j I n s 11r'ance Company , lico 1'okvo General Insiirance rd Company, Raipur, Through - Manager, address - 3' Floor, Shop No. 345-347, La] Ganga Shopping Moll G. E. Road, Raipur Dlstrict-Raipur(C.G.) APPEAL UNDER SECTION 30 OF THE WORKMEN'S COMPENSAT10N ACT 1923 ....^^: T^ RI©HCOURT OP CHH^TTIS^KH AT BILASPUR &IVISIONBENCH: HON'BLEMR.I.M.QU&DUSI^ HONiBLE Mft. PRASHANT WM^R MISHRA. JJ. ^ppellants (Non-QppSicants) ftespondeyits (Appli62nts) M.^. [cl No 998/2010 Viresh Kumar & another Vs Aasha Chouhan & oltiers :Pra€^e8Fit:.: :. '. •' • ':;-:: • ..:.:.:•..•.• Mr* V.A. (^yerdhQin, Adyocate for theappella^ ^r< Vipjn Singh, Adyocdte for the respondent Nos.t to 4. None fcr the respondent No,5 though ^^ryed, OR£>6ft(Qraiy (5th ADHI, 2011) I.M. Quddusi/J: 1. Heard on I.A. No.2,an application for takjng dQcuments on record. 2, Application is alJowed crsd the documents are taken on recprd. 3, Heard onI.A. NoA,an appJJCQtion foram^^ 4. Leamed counsel for the appellan^ to press this application and accordingly, it is djsmjssec! as not pressed, 5. With the consent of the partjes, the mcrM^r is being hearid finally, 6. By way of this appeai under Section 30 of ifie Workmen's Compensation Act, I- 1923 (for short i1tie Acf) have impugnedtheorderclated 21.04.2010 passed by the Jearned Commjssjoner^ Workmen's Gompensatio 'ths Commissioner') in Claim Case No.34/WC Act. Fatal/2009 aliowjng claim appiicdtion of the cJdjmants, avmrding cornpensatjon of Rs<3Q5443/~ and fastening liabi lity on the appeIJants herein to pay compensflition 7. This appeal has been admitted by 1tiis Coyrt vide order dated 03.03.2011 on the foliowina substcmtialquestjonof^^^l^^ , u Whether 1+»eCommjssjoner, Workmen Compenscttion was right in exonerating the ihsyrc^ce companyfrom ^ • basis of facts COTd circumstosnces of the case? ^ 8. Facts of the case, in brief, are that deceased Kuber Singh Chouhan was employed by ttie appellants herein, On 26<12.08 on the instruction of the employer, when the dececfsed was piowing the agriculturd field by the tractor bearing registratjon number C507-Z^-i459, the sajd yBhjcle has met with an accident as a result said Kuber Singh Chouhan sustained grievous injuries and died2 subsequentfy, Report of thc incjdent was iodgBd in the Police Station Nawaaarh/ The cJaimonts have fiteda claim appijcation befpre the Commissioner seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.8,02,000/- on the ground that they were dependent on -f+ie deceased and due to his death,they have suffered loss of income< 9. Qn the pleadings of the parties, the Commissioner has framed as many as five issues and after heannQ 1+ie parties and considering material flvailabte on record ai'lowed the cl'aim ooplication of the claimcsints and fGStened iiabifity on the appeliants herein to pay compensation< lO.W'e have heard learned' counsei for the pdrties and perused the records of the Commissioneras also the findings given in the impugned order, ll* From perusal of the impugned order it is obseryed that the Commissioner has exonerated the Insurance Cc»mpc2ny from its Ijabjlity on the ground that tractor-jn-questjon was insured in the name of grand fGther of the apDeilants namejy Lekhan Sinah.whereasthe deceased died during the course of emDloyment under the appellants herein anda therefore the Insurance Company is not iiable to pay compensation to the cJaimants. l2.In the matter of United India Insupance Company LTd. Vs. Santro t^vi & others reported in (2009) l SCC 558 the Honible Supreme Court in ParaqraDhs NoJ6 &l7 has held as under:- "16. The provisions of compulsory insurance have been framed to advonce a social object. It is in a way part of the social justice doctrine. When a certifiaxte of insuran^ is issued, In law/the insuronce company is bound to reimburse the owner There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that a contract of insurance inust fulfl!! the statutor^ requireinents of formation of a vaiid contract but in case ofa third-party risk.the question has to be considered frorn a different anyje* 17. Section 146 provides for statutory insurance, An insurance is m^idatorily required to be obtained by the person in charge of or in ;<5o <- possession of the vehicie. There is no provision in the Motor Vehicies AcT That unless The name (s) of the heirs of the oWner of a vehicle is/are subsTituted2 on th© certjficaTe of insurance or in the certificate of registratJQn in ptace of the origjnat owner (slnce dec^ssed),the motor vehicle cannot be alfowed to be used in a public pface. Thus, jn a case where the owner of a motor vehicle has expired, dlltiough there does not exist any statutory interdict for the psrson in possession of the vehicle to piy the same on road; but there being a statutory jnjunction that the same CQnnot be plsed untess a policy of insurance js obtained/we are of the opinion that the contract of insurance would be eriforceable, It would be so in a case of this nature as for the purpose of renewdl of insurance policy only the premium is to be paid. It is not in dispute that quGntum of premium paid for r^newa! of the poiicy is in terms of the provisions of the Insurance Act. 1936:' 13,From the abpve position of taw it is clear that evenif the owner of amotor vehicle, in whose name insurance policy is issued/has expired, the contract of insurance would be enforceable, In flie instant case also though the names of the appeiiants herein have not been mentioned jn the insurancepoj'icy but it is odmitted fact tfiat the vehicJe in question wa.s insured with the insurance company for the retevant period and therefore it cannot be said that the insurance company was not iiable to pay compensatjon to the cJaimants, Further/the insurance company has not been able To point out any breach 6f poJi'cy conditions by the appeJtants herein and therefore in our opinion 1+ie insurance compQny has wrongJy been exonerated from its Jjabiijty, 14.In the result, the appeat is allowed Qnd the Jmpuaned award so far as it reiates to fostenmg of licbilit/ on the appeJlortts herein is concerned/it is hereby set aside. The respondent No.S-Insurance CompQny is hereby held Jiable to pay compensation to the cJaJmants* In case any amount deposited by the apDellonts has alreadY been paid to the clGJmants then jt wiJI be open for the appei'tants to recover the same from the respondent No.D-lnsurance Company. However, jf the amount, so deposjted, has not been withdrawn so far/the appeJlants shaii be a(bw©d to withdraw the SQ.me. Rest of the conditjons and fjndings of impugned order are hereby confirmed\ No order as to costs, 10, Certifje^ copy as per ruf'es, Sd/- I-M.Quddusi Judge Sd^- p,ashantKumarMisb»a Judge