Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1298 (JHR)

National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Bulaki Ram

2003-11-17

GURUSHARAN SHARMA, HARI SHANKAR PRASAD

body2003
ORDER 1. Admittedly, Bhola Ram alias Bangali Ram was employed as Khalasi on the vehicle bearing registration No. BR 13-B-0037, which was owned by Late Madan Lal Jain. He died leaving behind a widow Tara Devi and a son, Vikas Jain. In the Claim application filed under the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) for compensation, the claimant Bulaki Ram named Tara Devi, wife of Madan Lal Jain, as owner of the vehicle and impleaded her as party. Her son Vikas Jain thereafter appeared and contended that he was the owner of the vehicle and not his mother, Tara Devi. As such the name of Tara Devi was deleted and in her place Vikas Jain was impleaded as owner of the vehicle. 2. In his written statement, Vikas Jain admitted employment of the deceased as Khalasi over the vehicle in question and according to him the deceased was 22 years old and was getting salary of Rs. 1500/- per month. According to the claimant no doubt the deceased was 22 years old at the time of the accident but he was getting Rs. 2100/- per month as salary. However, no documentary evidence was produced by the either party in support of the monthly salary of the deceased-Khalasi 3. The Court below, therefore, assessed the salary of the deceased-Khalasi at Rs. 1680/- per month in accordance with the Minimum Wages Act and calculated the total amount of Rs. 1,85,950.00 payable as compensation under the Act. 4. It is not in dispute that the vehicle in question was insured for the period 29.6.01 to 28.6.02 with the National Insurance Company Limited, having Insurance Policy No. 2000/6733846. 5. The Insurance Company also filed written statement and contested the case. According to it, Rajesh Kumar Singh, the driver of the vehicle was not possessing valid driving license at the relevant time. In support of its contention a photocopy of the certificate granted by the District Transport Officer, Hazaribagh, was filed to show that the driving license No. 1445 of 1996 was not issued from his office. The Insurance Company on this basis claimed that the terms of the Insurance Policy were violated and, therefore, it was not responsible to indemnify the owners liability to pay any compensation amount to the claimant as employer of the deceased. 6. The Insurance Company on this basis claimed that the terms of the Insurance Policy were violated and, therefore, it was not responsible to indemnify the owners liability to pay any compensation amount to the claimant as employer of the deceased. 6. Against the impugned judgment/award the Insurance Company only challenged its responsibility to pay the compensation amount. Hence, prayer has been made to modify the impugned judgment/award to the extent that instead of insurer, the owner of the vehicle in question, being the employer of the deceased, would pay the compensation amount. 7. Without going into the academic question in this Appeal as to whether on account of invalid driving license possessed by the driver of the vehicle in question, the Insurance Company was responsible to indemnify the owners liability who was also employer of the deceased or riot, we find that in the present case the insurer although pleaded in its written statement the invalidity of the driving license in question but failed to prove it. Neither the original certificate of the District Transport Officer, Hazaribagh issued in this regard was produced, nor any competent person was examined as a witness to prove the same. Hence, the Court below, in our view, rightly negatived the insurers contention of the invalidity of the driving license. 8. In our view, there is no occasion for any intervention in the impugned judgment/award by this Court in the present Appeal filed under Section (sic) the Act. 9. There is no merit in this appeal. It is dismissed.