Case: Palwinder Kaur & Others Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another

1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Leave granted. 3. The appellants, who are the claimants, are aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 15.4.2014 passed by the high Court of Delhi at New Delhi in F.A.O. No. 50 of 2012 reversing the judgment and award passed by the Commissioner, Workmen?s Compensation awarding a sum of Rs. 3,84, 280 (rupees three lakh eighty four thousand two hundred and eighty) as compensation for the death of the deceased while driving the motor vehicle.4. Admittedly, one Harvinder Singh was the owner of the truck bearing No. HR 55-9697 and the deceased was said to have been driving the vehicle. In the course of driving the said vehicle, he sustained grievous injuries committed by unknown persons, which caused his death.5. The Commissioner, Workmen?s Compensation, after considering the entire facts of the case, came to the conclusion that the deceased was, in fact, an employee of Harvinder Singh, who was the owner of the vehicle and in course of employment he was murdered by unknown persons. Consequently, the compensation of Rs. 3,84,280 was awarded.6. The respondent Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Challenged the aforesaid order mainly on the ground that the deceased was not the employee of Harvinder Singh, rather he himself was the owner of the vehicle and, therefore, under the conditions of insurance policy, the owner is not covered and no compensation is payable.7. From bare perusal of the impugned judgment passed by the High Court, it appears that without framing any substantial question of law, the High Court proceeded on the basis that deceased was the owner of the truck. Accepting the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the insurance company, the High Court came to the conclusion that the deceased being the owner of the truck is not entitled to get any compensation. From a perusal of the written statement filed by the insurance company, it reveals that no specific defence was taken by the insurance company that the deceased was the owner of the truck. Moreover, the only pleading which appears to be in the written statement is that no document was filed by the claimants showing the deceased as an employee of the original owner, respondent No. 1.8. We are, therefore, of the view that on the basis of mere submission made by the learned counsel for the parties, the High Court ought not to have come to that conclusion specifically when there was no such pleading by the insurance company. The Commissioner, Workmen?s Compensation, after considering the entire facts of the case pleaded by the parties, came to the conclusion that at the time of accident, the deceased was, in fact, driver and employee of the original owner Harvinder Singh.

Decision reasoning: 1[ds]8. We are, therefore, of the view that on the basis of mere submission made by the learned counsel for the parties, the High Court ought not to have come to that conclusion specifically when there was no such pleading by the insurance company. The Commissioner, Workmen?s Compensation, after considering the entire facts of the case pleaded by the parties, came to the conclusion that at the time of accident, the deceased was, in fact, driver and employee of the original owner Harvinder Singh.