..^.j^.\'^ \..-k,'-L -^ •t-Jl-.^.^•<.X.^^'OT^^--0^^^-i^^^^n>^^^^(' ^^^'^''^^^'^''^^^-^^'^ff'^ ^^: ?. C^. AA c,^: IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURTOFGHHAmSGARHATBILASPUR fC.G.-) M.A. r0 N0. O^Q OF 2010 19 - -° APPELLANT RESPOiMBENTS ^ 2. ^ Sai Baba Rice Mill Pvt. Ltd., Through: the Manager Kumar Rajpal, S/o Shri T.D. Rajpal, aged about 42 years, R/o Village Tulsi, Post Office Nevra, District Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS Smt. Tarannu,W/o JafarAhmed Khan, aged abbut 38 years, R/o BIOck No. 7-D, Street No. 31, Sector-7, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.). Shakid Ahmed, S/o Jafar Ahmed Khan, agedabout 9 years, through: natyral gyardian mother i.e. respohdent no. 1, R/6 BloGk No. 7-D, Street No. 31, Sector-7, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.). Divisional Manager, New India Insurance Company Limited, First Floor Madina Building, Jail Road, Raipur (C.G.) KK BB: iClaimed 'before by the Commissioner ii.inaei-w.c.Act Ar:riiQunbawarcledbytheConnmissioner RenalE^ impOsed RS. 3,27,340/- RS. 3,05,756/- Rs. 76,439/- f? ^n -rf _ (y/ » ^J'^t'-' J.,^1"^ ^. :^t>Wi V)3UtA^8l ~ &. ^oS^^SiS^- ^ APPEAL UNnER SECTmki ^p QF TflF Wrtb^EN COMPENSATION Aft, 1923 Ilitii^^ ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH : BILASPUR M.A. (C) No. 243 of 2010 •CS" Appellant Sai Baba Rice Mill Pvt. Ltd. Versus Respondents Smt. Tarannu SE others APPEAL UNDER SECTIONJj'3 0£THEMOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 DB: Hontile Shri I. M. Quddusi & HonT3le Shri G. Minhajuddin, JJ Shri Pawan Kesherwani, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Manish Upadhyay, Advocate for the respondents No. 1 SE 2. Shri Raj Awasthy, Advocate for the respondent No. 3. ORDER (Oran ( Passed on this 1 1th day of August, 2011) Per I. M. Quddusi, J. 1. This appeal, filed by the owner of the offendingvehicle, arises from the impugned award dated 15.1.2010, passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Durg, in Case No. 87/W.C.Act Fatal/2008, awarding a sum of Rs. 3,05,756/- as compensation along with interest @ 10% per annum and Rs. 76,439/- towards penalty, holding the non-applicant No. 1/owner, as liable to pay the amount of compensation to the \ . . .- claimants. 2. The, brief facts, in nutshell, are that deceased Jafar Ahmed Khan was working as an eznployee in Sri Sai Baba Rice Mill, Tilda. On 17.5.2008 during the course of employment at about 6.00 p.m. in the evening one iron pipe fell on the body of Jafar Ahmed Khan, the employee of the non-applicant No. 1. As a result of this accident Jafar Ahamed Khan died during treatinent. >/--7'1 l=:siS;B.,.. -?.'•;•^^???;%\ 7, The legal heirs/dependents of the deceased filed a claim case under Section 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 for award of a total compensation of Rs. 3,27.340/- under various heads. Learned Claims Tribunal, having regard to the facts situation and the evidence on record awarded a total sum of Rs. 3,05,756/- as compensation along with interest @ 10% per annum and Rs. 76,439/- towards penalty, holding the non-applicant No. 1/owner, as liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants, exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the lower Court records. The contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant is mainly that the insurance policy was filed before the Commissioner but the same was not considered on the ground that it was not got proved. Howe.ver, the Regional Manager, New India Insurance Company, the insurer, was the non-applicant No.2 before the Conimissioner and it was their duty to appear and deny the fact of the insurance, otherwise in the case of non-denial of the same it cannot be said that there was no insurance and hence the owner of the institution was liable to pay the compensation. In view of the foregoing, we think it proper that the matter should be reconsidered by the Tribunal and give its findings afresh in the light 'of the observations made hereinabove. Therefore, we allow this appeal in part, set aside the impugned award dated 15.1.2010 and remit back the matter to the Tribunal for decision afresh in the light of the observations made in the body of this order. No order as to costs. ^- '-^ ^? 8. Needless to mention that the parties shall be allowed to amend their pleadings, adduce further evidence again in support of their pleadings and may file further documents and get the documents verified etc. Thereafter, the decision shall be made by the Tribunal, as eariy as possible. 9. The amount, if any, deposited by the appellant shall remain in deposit till decision of the claim petition, afresh. 10. The parties shall appear before the Claims Tribunal on 22nd September, 2011. 11. The Registry is directed to send back the papers, requisitioned froni_the^Tribunal, forthwith. ;-F===7 Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge Thakur h- 1 'aun.^JiSF-" ^--^ ^- ^-^-K<