1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.416 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.883 OF 2010 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., )..Appellant Vs. Mr.Abdul Khalik Liyakatali Khanetec )..Respondent ---- Mr. A.B.Gatne for the appellant. ---- Coram : R.S.MOHITE,J Date : 10th March, 2010 PC FIRST APPEAL NO.416 OF 2010 1 This is a First Appeal filed by the Insurance Company against a judgment and order passed by the Commissioner under the Workmens Compensation Act, granting compensation of Rs.3,92,000/- to the applicants along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a from 10.10.2005 till the date of the award and future interest till the realisation of principal amount. The order has been passed jointly against the insurer and insurance. It is contended on behalf of the insurance that though the insurance stood in the name of present respondent no.3 Harikisan, the vehicle in question has been transferred by the insurered in favour of one Habib Khan. Though this contention is raised in the written statement, it is seen that the insurance company has chosen not to lead any evidence before the Commissioner. It is contended that the insurance company has appointed a private 2 investigator who found out the fact of transfer. The said private investigator was not examined as a witness. No attempt has been made to secure a witness from the RTO office to prove the factum of transfer of the vehicle. When the admitted position is that no evidence is led, such a contention relating to transfer cannot exist. It was contended that in view of the transfer of the vehicle the employer of the deceased was Habib Khan. The trial Court has relied upon the police papers to indicate that the respondent no.4 has claimed to be the employer. The record further indicates that the claimant issued a legal notice to the respondent no.4 and under such notice respondent no.4 made an endorsement admitting that he was an employer. Insurance company has not made any effort to summon documents such as muster roll etc. It was then sought to be contended that the claim ought to have been dismissed because the workman is covered under the provisions of ESI Act. It is necessary to show that the workman received such payment under the said Act. In this view of the matter, though this is a First Appeal, in the absence of any evidence on the part of the insurance company, the contentions raised cannot be entertained and hence the First Appeal is dismissed. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.883 OF 2010 As the First Appeal is dismissed, this Civil Application does not survive and stands disposed off accordingly. (R.S.MOHITE,J) 3 4