F.A.O. NO.1557 OF 2007 (O&M) :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: AUGUST 20, 2008 M/s The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Chandigarh .....Appellant VERSUS Sharman Lal and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. R. K. Bashamboo, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Sameer Vijay Singh, Advocate, for the respondents. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. M/s Oriental Insurance Company Limited has filed this first appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner, Circle I, Faridabad, under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The Commissioner has held the respondents entitled to a compensation to the tune of Rs.4,36,940/-. Appellant-Insurance Company is held liable to pay the said compensation as the vehicle was insured with it. The grievance of the appellant is that there was no relationship of employer and employee between the deceased and F.A.O. NO.1557 OF 2007 (O&M) :{ 2 }: respondent Nos.1 and 2 and otherwise also, the application for compensation was not maintainable as the accident allegedly did not take place during the course of employment. In addition, it is also pleaded that the deceased met with an accident while driving a motor cycle and as per the policy, the workman was not covered as no such premium was charged for this purpose. The claim petition had been filed by the respondent- claimants, alleging that deceased was an employee of respondent No.1 for five years, who died in a road accident during the course of his employment on 25.12.2004. It is also urged that the deceased was provided this motor cycle to do the field work by his employer and was directed to return to Faridabad on motor cycle. In the joint written statement filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2, the plea of relationship of employer and employee is denied. Further plea is that motor cycle was insured with the appellant-Insurance Company and if the Commissioner comes to the conclusion that the claimants were entitled to compensation, the liability of the same would be that of the appellant-Insurance Company. The appellant-Insurance Company filed a separate written statement. It took up those defences which are not permissible under law and hence, the defence taken by Insurance Company was not taken into consideration, being beyond the defences available to Insurance Company. It is noticed by the Commissioner that Insurance Company can raise objection regarding breach of contract between the insured and the insurer and any defence which is beyond the same, can not be looked into. The parties were allowed F.A.O. NO.1557 OF 2007 (O&M) :{ 3 }: to lead evidence after framing the issues. On the basis of evidence as led by the respective parties, the Commissioner came to the conclusion that it was proved beyond doubt that late Satbir was workman employed under Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and he sustained road side accident on the night of 25.12.2004 while driving motor cycle. While dealing with the submissions made by respondents that deceased was not their employee, the Commissioner has made reference to evidence given by other employee of respondent Nos.1 and 2, namely, Sachin showing that they were employees of the Printing Press at Sahapur Jat, Delhi and they both were in the course of their duties, when Satbir died in a road accident. Reference has also been made to a letter written by respondent No.1 to Insurance Company that deceased Satbir was his employee. Respondents have also admitted receipt of notice under Section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, to which they had not replied, stating that the deceased was not his/their employees. Though the respondents were maintaining that the deceased was unknown but they could not explain how two account payee cheques in favour of the claimants were issued. On the basis of this evidence, the Commissioner has rightly come to the conclusion that the deceased was an employee of the respondents. Their efforts to show that motor cycle was not given by them to the deceased was also found false and the Commissioner came to the conclusion that the motor cycle was handed over to Satbir on receipt of a message given by respondent No.1. From the impugned order, it can be seen that the Commissioner has seen the entire evidence led by respective parties F.A.O. NO.1557 OF 2007 (O&M) :{ 4 }: and on the basis of analysis and appreciation of the evidence, has come to the conclusion that the deceased Satbir was an employee of the respondents and had died in the course of his duties. I have not been able to persuade myself to interfere in the impugned order on any of the grounds pleaded on behalf of the appellant-Company. The appeal has also been filed with a delay of 108 days. Though the notice on the application, seeking condonation of delay was issued, but the reasons in support of the delay that the file went from one office to another, would not be sufficient to condone the delay. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed on account of delay as also on merits. August 20, 2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE