^t'^'^E^'E'^'^^^'[.:3i?S~SS c^ ^/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR MA(C) 4^/Q ,tW- APPELLANT NON APPLICANT N0.2 ^•tl(^ ^^^' .....^' T' "-sini Insurance Co. Ltd. Through-Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch Office- Kamthi Line Rajnandgaon, Tahsil 85 Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) VERSUS ^ RESPONDENTS APPLICANTNO.l x 2. Bhushan Singh Tekam age24 S/o Set Singh Netam, Driver R/o Choukhadia para, Rajnandgaon, ward No. 36, Thasil 85 Distt. Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) Davinder Singh aged about 50 S/o Sukhdeo Singh R/o Mahesh Nagar (Near Lohia House)- Tah. & Distt. Rajnandgaon(CG) Owner of Vehicle No. CG 08 ZC 0589 ^^- APPEAL UNDER SECTION 30 OF WORKS MAN COMPENSATION ACT HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MA(C)No. 477 of 2010 Appeliant NonaRRlicant No.2 Applicant No.1 National Insurnce Co. Ltd. Versus Bhushan Singh Tekam & Another APPEAL UNDER SECTION 30 OF WORKMEN'S COMPENSMIQN ACT (SB: Hon'bleMr. N.K. Aaarwal, J.) Present : Shri Srikumar Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Shri Sanjay S Agrawa!, Advocate for appellant. ORDER (Passed on 24th day of June, 2010) 1. Heard on admission. 2. The instant appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company against the award dated 20.10.2009, passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Labour Court, Rajnandgaon, in case No. 21/WC AcV2008 (NF), whereby and whereunder an amount of Rs. 2,08,230/- has been awarded in favour of ctaimant/respondent No. 1 . 3. Brief facts of the case are that, the respondent No. 1/claimant was working as a Driver under the employment of respondent No. 2. On 20.04.2006, the claimant due to an accident arose out of and durlng the course of employment, sustained multiple injuries and became permanently disabled. 4. The claimant i.e. respondent No. 1 filed an application before the Commission for Workmen's Compensation, Rajnandgaon, under Section 22 ofthe Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, claiming Da 8. compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/- from the employer i.e. respondent No. 2 and appellant/insurance company alongwith interest and penalty thereupon for the injures sustained by him in the said accident. The claim was opposed by the appellanVinsurance company on the ground that the tyre used in the said vehicle was burst due to overloading and the respondentNo. 1 was not having valid and effective driving license at the time of accident, and therefore, the respondent No. 1 is not entitled for any compensation against the appellant/insurance company. However, the factum of policy was not denied. The Commissioner for Workmen, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led by the parties, the material available on the record, and submissions made by the parties, held the appellant/insurance company responsible for payment of compensation and awarded Rs. 2,08,230/- as compensation in favour of claimanVrespondent No. 1. The only question raised by Shri Agrawal is that the respondent No. 1 was not having valid and effective driving license at the time of accident and the said truck was also overloaded at that time, therefore, the Commissioner went wrong in fastening liability upon the appellant/insurance company for payment of compensation to the respondent No. 1. Undisputedly, the appellant did not prove the above defence taken by him nor prove the policy containing such conditions in ......^, .*^L-^' - ; .:^L».:.-!WW!d!S^^ ^^^'.if^ps's!es iKi?SSS?^5 9. 10. 11. the policy. Fact of overloading was not even taken by the appetlant in its written statement filed before the Commissioner. It is well settled law that it is for the appellant to prove defence taken by him in which he utterly failed and as such it cannot be said that the Commissioner has committed any illegality in passing the above award holding the appellant/insurance company liable for payment of compensation. In view of foregoing, in the considered opinion of this court, no substantial question of law arises in the instant case for determination of this court. In the result, the appeal being devoid of substance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- N.K. Agarwa! Judge Sahu