Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1 (ORI)

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD v. S. LAXMI

2004-01-06

M.PAPANNA

body2004
M. PAPANNA, J. ( 1 ) IN this appeal under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act by United India Insurance Co. Ltd. , Bhubaneswar, judgment of learned commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Joint Labour Commissioner, jeypore (for short 'the Commissioner') in w. C. Case No. 28 of 1997 awarding a sum of Rs. 2,07,980 towards compensation in favour of claimants is called in question. ( 2 ) CLAIMANTS who are respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein, made an application to the learned Commissioner claiming compensation on account of the death of deceased S. Rama Rao who died in motor vehicle accident while working as driver in the truck bearing registration No. OR 10-5391 owned by the respondent No. 4 herein. ( 3 ) ON consideration of the evidence on record, learned Commissioner adjudicated claim application and passed the award as aforesaid. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel Mr. A. K. Mohanty, appearing for the appellant, has contended that appellant is not liable to indemnify owner of offending vehicle particularly when the said vehicle was not driven by a duly licensed driver. The deceased driver had also no valid and effecting driving licence at the material time. That apart, the learned Commissioner has gone wrong for imposing penal interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the awarded amount from the date of accident in default of depositing the amount within 30 days of impugned judgment. Moreover, according to him, in the absence of documentary evidence to show that deceased was engaged as a driver in the truck in question at the material time, the appellant is not liable to pay compensation. ( 5 ) APPEARING for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 on the other hand, their counsel Mr. S. K. Mund has refuted the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the appellant. His contention principally is that the appeal under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act against impugned judgment is not maintainable particularly when substantial question of law has not been formulated in the grounds of appeal. Moreover, it is open to the insurance company to proceed against the insured to recover the compensation amount paid to the claimant. ( 6 ) JUDGMENT impugned before this court along with evidence on record is gone through carefully. Moreover, it is open to the insurance company to proceed against the insured to recover the compensation amount paid to the claimant. ( 6 ) JUDGMENT impugned before this court along with evidence on record is gone through carefully. Evidence of PWs 1 and 2 examined for claimants indicates that deceased S. Rama Rao, driver of offending truck and M. Santosh, helper of the truck died in the accident. This fact has not been disputed by owner of the offending vehicle. However, denying its liability insurance company who is the appellant herein, filed written statement of defence. But no evidence as such has been adduced either by insurer or insured for which finding of the learned Commissioner that deceased s. Rama Rao was a workman under the workmen's Compensation Act and he died in a motor vehicle accident out of and in course of his employment is held to be well founded. That being so, question of interference of this court with the findings as aforesaid does not arise. ( 7 ) LEARNED Commissioner, on evidence of the wife of the deceased S. Rama Rao, supported by post-mortem report came to hold that his age at the material time was 30 years and his wage was Rs. 2,000 per month as per the version of his wife (PW 2 ). No evidence as such was adduced for and on behalf of appellant to controvert the above fact. As such, I am not inclined to interfere with the findings of the learned commissioner on this score. ( 8 ) LEARNED Commissioner, basing on age and wage of deceased S. Rama Rao fixed compensation at Rs. 2,07,980. He further directed the insurer to deposit the said amount within 30 days from the date of his judgment failing which the insurer shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of accident. ( 9 ) REGARD being had to the materials on record, I am of considered view that impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity. Learned Commissioner has not committed any illegality in awarding rs. 2,07,980 towards compensation in favour of claimants on account of death of breadwinner of their family. Therefore, i am not inclined to interfere with the judgment impugned before this court. ( 10 ) IN case of United India Insurance co. Learned Commissioner has not committed any illegality in awarding rs. 2,07,980 towards compensation in favour of claimants on account of death of breadwinner of their family. Therefore, i am not inclined to interfere with the judgment impugned before this court. ( 10 ) IN case of United India Insurance co. Ltd. v. Lehru, 2003 ACJ 611 (SC), view taken by their Lordships of the Apex court is that the insurance company cannot avoid its liability towards third party on the ground that the licence of the driver of the vehicle was a fake licence. This shows that their Lordships of the Supreme Court were of the view that liability of insurance company towards third party does not get avoided. It is further seen from the decision of the Apex Court that the insurance company on proof that owner of vehicle was aware of the fact that licence was fake can, however, recover the amount from insured. ( 11 ) THEREFORE, in the light of the dictum quoted above, the present appeal being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. However, interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum imposed on the appellant by learned commissioner from the date of accident on his failure to deposit the same within 30 days of the impugned judgment is waived out. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. It is further ordered that the appellant is at liberty to proceed against owner of the offending vehicle to recover the compensation amount. In such view of the matter, the case be remanded to the learned Commissioner with a direction to determine the inter se liability between the owner of the vehicle and the insurance company giving them opportunity to adduce evidence in support of their stand. The claimants need not be noticed to appear before the learned commissioner. ( 12 ) SINCE the entire awarded amount has been deposited with the learned Commissioner, he shall disburse the amount to the claimants with accrued interest within a month on proper identification. Appeal dismissed.