Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 201 (JHR)

Dilip Patwari v. Malti Devi

2008-02-20

D.K.SINHA, M.Y.EQBAL

body2008
ORDER 1. This appeal at the instance of the owner of the vehicle is directed against the award passed by Sri Mahesh Prasad Sinha, Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Deoghar in W.C. Case No, 2 of 2004 on 27.8.2005 whereby a sum of Rs. 90.088.80/- has been awarded together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. 2. This case has a chequered history. 3. The claim case was filed by the claimant in the year 1989 for grant of compensation on the ground that deceased was a driver in Maxi Taxi bearing registration No. B.R.L. 6311 which met with an accident while he was on duty on the said vehicle. In the claim case originally, the New India Insurance Company was made as insurer of the said vehicle and as such the said Insurance Company was impleaded as party in the claim case. Thereafter, the said Insurance Company denied the insurance of the vehicle. Thereafter in 1990 Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company was impleaded as party by the claimant who also denied the insurance of the vehicle with the said company. In 1990 the appellant, owner of the vehicle appeared and it was disclosed that the vehicle was insured with the United India Insurance Company Ltd. In 1999 the Labour Court however, passed ex-parte award against the United India Insurance Company Ltd. The said ex-parte award was set aside at the instance of United Insurance Company Ltd. on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was given to the company. Thereafter, the matter was taken up on merit. In the show cause filed by the United Insurance Company Ltd. as usual there was evasive denial of insurance of the vehicle stating inter alia that in absence of any policy, the insurance company Is not in a position to either accept or deny the vehicle which was insured. But the owner of the vehicle consistently pleaded that the vehicle was insured with the United Insurance Company by giving policy particulars. However, owner of the vehicle failed to produce the insurance policy. As a result of which award was passed against the owner of the vehicle. 4. Being aggrieved by the said award the appellant preferred this appeal reiterating that the vehicle was insured by the United India Insurance Co. However, owner of the vehicle failed to produce the insurance policy. As a result of which award was passed against the owner of the vehicle. 4. Being aggrieved by the said award the appellant preferred this appeal reiterating that the vehicle was insured by the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. This appeal was taken up on 3.7.2007 and this Court directed the respondent/United India Insurance Company Ltd. to file affidavit stating on oath whether the vehicle bearing registration No. BRL 6311 was registered with the company vide policy No. 31801 24/1/02164/87. Inspite of the aforesaid order no affidavit was filed and this Court again by order dated 13.8.2007 allowed some more time to the respondent-company to file affidavit stating the aforesaid fact. Again by order dated 13.12.2007 this Court allowed time to the respondent company to file affidavit. After much persuasion it was only on 3.1.2008 the respondent-Insurance Company admitted that vehicle was insured with United India Insurance Company Ltd. by the policy furnished by the owner of the vehicle. 5. In the light of the aforesaid fact we have no hesitation to hold that United India Insurance Company Ltd. is liable to pay the entire compensation amount to the claimant. 6. The next question that falls for consideration is as to whether in negligently the claim case remained pending for last 20 years. So far as the period of 1989-90 the United Insurance Company was not impleaded as party. Although in 1999 the Labour Court passed award without giving notice to the respondent-United India Insurance Company as a result of which the award was set aside and the claim case was restored. In our view, from 1989-1990 respondent United India Insurance Company Ltd. is not liable to pay any interest on the compensation amount but from 1999 there was consistent denial from the side of the respondent that the vehicle was insured with the respondent-Insurance Company. 7. We, therefore, hold that from 1999 till date respondent United India Insurance Company is liable to pay interest on the compensation amount at least at the rate of 12% per annum. We allow this appeal and hold that compensation amount assessed by the Labour Court shall be paid by the respondent United India Insurance Company together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 1999 till the date. We allow this appeal and hold that compensation amount assessed by the Labour Court shall be paid by the respondent United India Insurance Company together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 1999 till the date. Needless to say that Insurance Company shall deposit the entire compensation amount with interest within a period of four weeks from today.