IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 68 of 2008 National Insurance Co. Ltd. … Appellant Versus Smt. Asadi Devi & others … Respondents Sri D.S. Patni, Advocate for appellant Sri B.N. Maulekhi, Advocate on behalf of Sri Pankaj Purohit, Advocate for respondent no. 1 Dated: September 5, 2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal, under Section 30 of Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, has been filed against the judgment and order dated 25.07.2007 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chamoli in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 04 of 2005, Smt. Asadi Devi & others versus Kunwar Singh & others. The claimants filed a claim petition before Workmen Compensation Commissioner for grant of compensation on account of death of deceased- Tajbar Singh in a motor accident alleging therein that deceased was employed as Conductor on Vehicle No. UP05/0173 and on 3.0.4.2004 the said vehicle met with an accident near Teen Dhara, P.S. Devprayag, District Tehri Garhwal, in which deceased died. It has also been alleged that deceased was 42 years of age at the time of his death and he used to earn Rs.4000/- per month as salary plus Rs.50/- per day for diet. The claimants claimed a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- as compensation against opposite parties. 2 Opposite party no. 1-Kunwar Singh filed his written statement and pleaded that he sold vehicle No. UP 05-0173 to opposite party Sri Kishan Singh son of Yashwant Singh, which was got registered in the name of Kishan Singh on 3.1.2004 and the said vehicle was registered in the name of Kishan Singh on the date of accident i.e.30.4.2004. It has further been pleaded that if the claimants are entitled to get any compensation, the liability to pay the same lies on insurance company and owner of vehicle-Kishan Singh. Opposite party no. 2-insurance company denying the facts stated in the petition pleaded in its written statement that at the time of accident the vehicle was not being plied in accordance with the terms of the insurance. At the time of accident, papers of vehicle, registration, fitness, permit, insurance policy, pollution certificate and driving licence were not valid, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. Opposite party no. 3-Kishan Singh filed his written statement admitting therein that deceased was employed as conductor on his vehicle and opposite party no. 3 used to give him a sum of Rs.3000/- per month as salary. The amount of compensation claimed by claimants is excessive. It has also been pleaded that at the time of accident vehicle was comprehensively insured and all the papers relating to vehicle were valid. It has further been pleaded that his vehicle was being plied by an expert driver, who was having valid driving licence. 3 Therefore, the liability to pay the compensation, if any, is of insurance company. The Workmen Compensation Commissioner after having considered the entire material available on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties, allowed the claim petition for a sum of Rs. 2,67,735/- against the opposite party no. 2-National Insurance Co. Ltd., vide judgment and award dated 25.07.2007. The Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner further directed opposite party no. 2- insurance company to pay the said amount to the claimants within a period of one month from the date of judgment, failing which, claimants shall also be entitled to get interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the appellant-insurance company has preferred the present appeal, under Section 30 of Workmen’s Compensation Act, before this Court. Heard Sri D.S. Patni, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri B.N. Maulekhi, Advocate on behalf of Sri Pankaj Purohit, learned counsel for respondent no. 1 and perused the record. The ground taken by learned counsel for the appellant is that driver of ill-fated bus was not having valid driving licence and the bus was overloaded. As regards the driving licence, the Tribunal has given a categorical finding that the driver had valid driving licence, copy of the driving licence has 4 been filed, which shows that the driver had valid driving licence. The vehicle was having valid permit, registration and insurance. Therefore, the submission with regard to driving licence has no substance. I find that the finding of the Tribunal on this point is based on documentary evidence. So far as the point raised by learned counsel for appellant-insurance company pertaining to overloading is concerned, although this point was not agitated in the written statement filed by insurance company and the learned Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner also did not frame any issue on this point, but it is relevant to mention here that in the same accident A.O. No. 545 of 2005 and other connected A.Os the point of overloading has been considered by this Court and the same was found to be not proved by the insurance company, vide judgment dated 18.07.2007. Therefore, in view of the finding of this Court in the aforesaid judgment dated 18.07.2007 on the point of overloading, the submission raised by learned counsel for appellant-insurance company has no force and is accordingly rejected. Therefore, under these circumstances the insurance company cannot shirk its liability in payment of the compensation. No other point has been raised on behalf of appellant-insurance company. For the reasons stated above, the appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and award passed by 5 Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, is hereby confirmed. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) SP