Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 431 (JK)

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gurmeet Kour

2014-10-30

TASHI RABSTAN

body2014
1. This Appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 is directed against the judgment and award dated 06.05.2009 passed in File No.10/WC Act/07 titled "Smt. Gurmeet Kour v. Inderjit Singh and another'' by Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act (Assistant Labour Commissioner), Jammu (hereinafter referred to as "Commissioner") wherby it is held that the appellant-insurance company is liable to indemnify the Respondent No. 4 S. Indeerjit Singh by a compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,62,740/- for making payment to the dependants of deceased S. Gurcharan Singh, driver of the vehicle, who was working under his employment. 2. In brief, the case of the Appellant is that Claimants-Respondents 1 to 3 filed Claim Petition before the commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (Assistant Labour Commissioner), Jammu seeking compensation on account of death of deceased S. Gurcharan Singh, who was a workmen being employed with respondent No. 4 and died during the course of employment in an accident on 23.10.2006 at 1 a.m. near Barpeta (Assam) while driving the vehicle of Respondent No.4. The deceased S. Gurcharan Singh was the driver of Truck bearing registration No. JK02W-1015, the owner of which is respondent No. 4. It is averred that deceased met with an accident when above said Truck loaded with Timber was going towards Siliguri Assam and turned turtle on the way due to which deceased succumbed to his injuries on the spot. The Commission, therefore, after recording evidence and hearing both the sides, passed the award of Rs. 3,62,740/- as compensation in favour of claimants/Respondent Nos.1 to 3, to be paid by owner Respondent No.4, who is ordered to be indemnified by the Insurance company as the vehicle was insured with Insurance Company-Appellant herein. 3. Appellant is aggrieved of an Award passed by the learned Commissioner and has assailed the same on the following substantial questions of law framed by the appellant in grounds of Paragraph No. 3 of the appeal. The substantial questions of law so framed by the Appellant is reproduced herein as under:- (i) Whether the appellant-insurance company is not liable to pay the amount under the Award as the owner/ employer/ respondent No. 4 herein has violated the terms and conditions of the Insurance policy and Motor Vehicles Act. The substantial questions of law so framed by the Appellant is reproduced herein as under:- (i) Whether the appellant-insurance company is not liable to pay the amount under the Award as the owner/ employer/ respondent No. 4 herein has violated the terms and conditions of the Insurance policy and Motor Vehicles Act. The respondent No. 4 despite having the knowledge that the Truck No. JK02W-1015 driven by the deceased S. Gurcharan Singh was not having a valid Route Permit. As the Route Permit of the truck was for J&K Roads only and the said permit No. 15013/JP/RTAJ was valid for 20.09.2004 to 19.09.2005 while as the accident has occurred at Barpeta, Assam on 23.10.2006. Therefore, on the date of accident, the vehicle was being driven on the roads outside tho route allotted under the permit, hence the Route Permit of the vehicle was not valid and effective. Therefore, the Trial Court ought not to have fixed the liability on the appellant herein. Hence, fixing of the liability on the appellant herein is bad in the eyes of law. (ii) Whether the evidence on record calls for discussion for alternative view thereby discharging the appellant insurance company from the liability under Workmen's Compensation Act and fixing the same on the respondent No.4/employer of the deceased. (iii) Whether the trial Court has not appreciated the material and facts on record and, thus, committed the grave error of law by fixing the liability on the insurance company/appellant herein and, thus, the award needs to be set aside. (iv) Whether the total non application of mind by the trial Court to the evidence and pleadings on record resulted in grave injury and erroneous finding. Therefore, the impugned award needs to be set aside and the liability, if any, needs to be fixed on the respondent No.4 herein under Workmen's Compensation Act. 4. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company insisted that since the offending vehicle was not having a valid route permit to ply outside the State of Jammu and Kashmir, as such, liability for the accident which occurred at Barpeta, Assam could not be fastened on the appellant-insurance company. In such a situation, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the liability to pay compensation is to be discharged by the owner of the offending vehicle. 5. In such a situation, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the liability to pay compensation is to be discharged by the owner of the offending vehicle. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents-claimants strenuously argued that questions of law formulated by the appellant as enumerated in the memo of appeal are essential questions of fact and not-questions of law. That being the position, appeal in terms of Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act would not be maintainable. 6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 has also supported the arguments raised by learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records, particularly impugned award. 8. From the perusal of the impugned award, it is crystal clear that the issue with regard to possession of a valid route permit of the offending vehicle (Truck) was specifically considered by the learned Commissioner and on the basis of evidence adduced, learned Commissioner has come to the conclusion that the appellant insurance company had failed to prove that the truck was plying in Assam without a valid route permit. 9. The aforesaid finding of fact has attained finality. This Court while hearing appeal in terms of Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act would entertain and consider the appeal only if it involves substantial questions of law. The award made by the Commissioner does not suffer from any illegality and no contrary view in this regard can be taken by this Court. Otherwise also, in absence of there being any substantial questions of law involved in the appeal, it would not be appropriate for this Court to reassess the evidence and come to different finding of fact. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out any other illegality in the impugned award calling for interference by this Court. 11. Viewed thus, appeal is found to be without merit and is dismissed along with connected CMA(s). 12. A copy of this order along with record be sent back to the Court concerned.