IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL. A.O. No. 36 of 2007 Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. .. Appellant. Vs. Smt. Rakama Devi and others …. Respondents. Sri Pankaj Purohit, learned counsel for the appellant. Sri R.P. Nautiyal, learned counsel for the claimants/respondents. WITH A.O. No. 23 of 2007 Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. .. Appellant. Vs. Smt. Sunita Devi and others .. Respondents. Sri Pankaj Purohit, learned counsel for the appellant. Sri R.P. Nautiyal, learned counsel for the claimants/respondents. Dated: 02-01-2009 UHon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. Both these appeal arise out against the same accident, therefore, they are being decided by this common judgment. 2- A.O. No. 36/2007 has been filed against the judgment and award dated 18-10-2006, passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/District Judge Chamoli, in MACT Case No. 4/2006, Smt. Rukma Devi and others Vs. The Oriental Insurance Company. In this case the tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment against the Oriental Insurance Company in lieu of death of Pushkar Singh Negi in the accident. 3- A.O. No. 23/2007 has been filed against the judgment and award dated 29-11-2006, passed by the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner Chamoli, in W.C.A. No. 15/2006, Smt. Sunita Devi and others Vs. The Oriental Insurance Company. In this case the 2 learned Commissioner has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,70,032/- against the Oriental Insurance Company in lieu of death of Surajpal Singh Negi in the accident and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the amount of compensation within a period of one month, failing which interest @ 9% per annum shall be payable. 4- Brief facts of the case are that on 14-11-2005 the deceased Pushkar Singh Negi and Surajpal Singh Negi were travelling in Utility bearing registration No. U.A. 07-K- 2248, from Simali to village Sainu. Surajpal Singh was driving the vehicle. At about 6.30 P.M. when the said vehicle reached one kilometer ahead of Simali market on Sainu road, it met with an accident due to the rash and negligence of its driver, due to which both the deceased sustained grievous injuries. Deceased Pushkar Singh Negi died on 17-11-2005 in Himalayan Institute Jolly Grant Dehradun, whereas the another deceased died in Combined Medical Institute, Dehradun, on 25-12- 2005. 5- The claim petition for compensation in lieu of death of Purshkar Singh was filed before the Tribunal whereas the petition for the death of Surajpal Singh was filed before the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner. 6- The Oriental Insurance Company contested both the petitions by filing its written statement and the common plea was taken that the offending vehicle was not having valid documents and its driver was also not possessing valid driving license. Before Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner plea was also taken that there was no relationship of employee and employer between deceased Surajpal Singh and the owner of the vehicle. 3 7- In both the petitions relevant issues were framed. Thereafter, parties adduced evidence in support of their cases. 8- The Tribunal after hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the evidence decreed the claimant petition for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- along with interest @ 5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment against the Oriental Insurance Company, in lieu of death of Pushkar Singh, whereas the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner has decreed the petition for a sum of Rs. 2,70,032/- in lieu of death of Surajpal Singh (driver) against the Oriental Insurance Company and directed to deposit the compensation within a period of 1 ½ months, failing which interest @ 9% per annum shall be payable on the awarded money. 9- Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the MACT dated 18-10-2006 the Insurance Company filed A.O. No. 36/2007 and against the judgment and award dated 29-11-2006, passed by the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, A.O. No. 23/2007 has been preferred. 10- Heard learned counsel for the Oriental Insurance Company/appellant and the learned counsel for claimants/respondents and perused the record. 11- Learned counsel for the insurance company in A.O. No. 36/2007, has submitted that the deceased Pushkar Singh Negi was the owner/insured of the vehicle. He was not a third party. As per the policy the P.A. coverage is given only for the owner/driver of the 4 vehicle and not separately for the owner and as such no compensation could have been awarded against the insurer for his death, hence the Claim Tribunal has committed illegality by allowing the claim petition in favour of the claimants/respondents. 12- I do not find merit in the above submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. The case of the respondent/owner (wife of deceased Pushkar Singh) is that the deceased Pushkar Singh, owner of the offending vehicle and his son Surajpal Singh were sitting in the vehicle. Surajpal Singh was driving the vehicle. No other person was travelling in the said vehicle. The insurance policy paper No. 10-C, filed before the tribunal, shows that premium of Rs. 100/- towards P.A. of the owner and Rs. 25/- for employee/driver was taken from the owner of the vehicle and P.A. cover under Section III, in the schedule of premium in insurance policy, for owner/driver has been shown as Rs. 2,00,000/-. The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards the compensation for the death of Pushkar Singh. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in the impugned award passed by the Tribunal against the insurance company. 13- So far as the A.O. No. 23/2007 filed before the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner for the death of Surajpal Singh is concerned, as stated in the earlier part of the judgment, deceased Pushkar Singh and Surajpal Singh were sitting in the offending vehicle. Surajpal Singh was driving the vehicle. It has been alleged by the claimants that the deceased Surajpal Singh was employed as driver in the vehicle and he was getting Rs. 4,000/- per month from the owner as salary. The vehicle in question was a goods carrying vehicle. The claimants’ 5 specific case is that deceased Surajpal Singh was employed as a driver on the vehicle in question and the employment of deceased Surajpal Singh as driver cannot be denied, particularly, in the event that the opposite party/insurance company did not adduce any evidence to establish this fact that in fact Surajpal Singh was not employed as driver and some other person was employed as driver on the vehicle in question. However, the claimants could not file any document to show that what amount of salary he was getting from the employer. Therefore, the learned Commissioner has assessed the compensation on the basis of minimum wages of Rs. 2,550/- per month. The offending vehicle was insured with Oriental Insurance Company; the driver was having valid driving license and premium was paid for the owner and employee/driver separately, therefore, the insurance company has rightly been held liable to pay the amount of compensation in lieu of death of Surajpal Singh Negi (driver). 14- In view of above discussion both the appeals lack merit and are liable to be dismissed. 15- Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed. The impugned judgment and award passed by the courts below are hereby confirmed. 16- The statutory amount deposited with this court in A. O. No. 36/2007 be remitted to the tribunal concerned. 17- Let a copy of this judgment be placed in the file of A.O. No. 23/2007. ( B.C. Kandpal, J.) ISB 6