Case: Firdaus Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

3. On 01st September, 2003, Parvez Khan, the husband of appellant was driving the vehicleG 1875 while going to Rampur from Hapur. The vehicle was hit by a truck bearing No.UP 22coming from the opposite side and due to the accident, Parvez Khan died on the spot. Abdul Khalid, the father of deceased filed a claim for compensation before the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, claiming an amount of Rs.Four Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) with 12% interest and also demanded 50% of that as penalty. Respondent nos.2 and 3 to the appeal were impleaded as defendant nos.1 and 2. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. was impleaded as third defendant whereas Mohd. Anis was impleaded as fourthIt was pleaded in the claim that Parvez Khan was an employee under the employment of defendant no.1, 2 and 4, who was getting Rs. 4,000/(Rupees Four Thousand Only) as salary per month. All the defendants filed their counter affidavits. The case of defendant no.1 was that the vehicleG 1875 was owned by defendant no.1 which he had sold out to defendant no.4.4. It was accepted that the vehicle was insured with Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. for the period from 06.11.2002 to 05.11.2003; thus at the time of accident the vehicle was insured with the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.5. The Workmen Compensation Commissioner allowed the claim, awarding a sum of Rs. 4,27,148/(Rupees Four Lakhs Twenty Seven Thousand One Hundred and Forty Eight Only) as compensation along with 12% interest per annum, aggrieved against which, the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. filed the first appeal from order in the High court.6. The High court vide its judgment dated 12.12.2014 has set aside the award of the Workmen Compensation Commissioner and remanded the matter for fresh decision. The reason for remand has been mentioned by the High court in paragraph 6 of the judgment which is to the followingthe claimant himself admitted that his son was employee of Mohd. Anis, therefore, it is proved that he was not the employee of defendant no.1 M/s Santosh Dental Hospital. In these circumstances, whether the Insurance Company, who has insured vehicle with the ownership of defendant no.1, was liable for payment of compensation, on this aspect nothing has been considered and the entire case has been considered only on the aspect that vehicle has been registered in the name of defendant no.1 and, therefore, Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation. The inter se relationship of employer and employee with defendant no.1 and deceased has not been considered and there is no discussion on this issue and whether in these circumstances the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation, is another issue which has not been considered.The wife of the claimant, who was one of the respondent in the High court, has come up in appeal against the judgment of the High court.

Reasoning: There is no dispute that defendant no.1 was the owner of the vehicle who got it insured with the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. The Workmen Compensation Commissioner has also observed that defendant no.1 failed to produce the Registration Certificate of the vehicle and since the name of defendant no.1 is in the insurance policy as owner of the vehicle, which points out that the vehicle is in the name of defendant no.1 till date. Before the High Court also, no material has been placed on the record which proved that vehicle stood in the name of defendant no.4. The Workmen Compensation Commissioner had come to the conclusion that defendant no.1 still continues to the owner of the vehicle and defendant No.4 has only looking after the vehicle. The High court having not returned any finding that vehicle was transferred to defendant no.4, ought not to have set aside the award of the Workmen Compensation Commissioner. The reliance on the mere submission of the claimant that his son was an employee of Mohd. Anisdefendant no.4 has no significance. Abdul Khalid the claimant was not the person who has knowledge of ownership of the truck except what he was told by his deceased son. When the Registration Certificate of the vehicle was not produced by defendant no.1 the High court ought to have drawn the adverse inference which was drawn by Workmen Compensation Commissioner against defendant no.1 regarding the ownership of the vehicle.13. Even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments that vehicle was transferred from defendant no.1 to defendant no.4, there will be no consequence with regard to liability of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. to pay compensation.In Rikhi Ram Case (Supra), although this Court considered the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, but the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 also contains the similar provisions under Section 146, 147 and 157 of the Act. Hence, the ratio of judgment in Rikhi Ram case is fully applicable in the facts of the present case also.In view of the above, it is not necessary for us to give any concluded finding regarding ownership of the vehicle No.HR 2 G 1875 on the date of accident for the purpose of this case. In either of the eventuality, i.e. whether defendant no.1 was the owner of the vehicle on the date of the accident, or defendant no.4 was the owner of the vehicle, the liability of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. continues and Workmen compensation Commissioner has rightly fastened the liability on the Insurance Company. The remand made by the High court to find out as to whether Parvez Khan was an employee of the defendant no.1 or not, was unnecessary.17. We are thus of the opinion that the High court committed an error in setting aside the order of Workmen Compensation Commissioner.