JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. S Dutta, learned senior counsel for the appellant assisted by Mr. D Barbhuyan and Mr. N Choudhury. None appears for the respondents. 2. The present appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company against the judgment and award dated 22.9.2006 in WC Case No. 124/99 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, Kamrup, Guwahati. 3. The claim petition was preferred by one Pradip Boro, Dist-Bongaigaon for compensation under Compensation Act on account of death of his son Dilip Boro in a motor vehicle accident arising out of and in the course of his employment under its owner. 4. The brief facts that can be re-capitulated is that the said Dilip Boro was a Handiman in a Truck No. NL-02/A-3854 and during his employment as a handiman in the said vehicle on 14.5.1999 when the said truck loaded with coal was going from Beltola towards Baihata, it went out of order at a place named Joyguru. While the driver of the vehicle was trying to start the vehicle it was knocked down by another Truck, as a result of which the small baton hit the deceased, resulting severe injury on his person and he died on the spot due to injury he sustained. 5. Police was accordingly informed and the FIR was lodged at North Guwahati Police Out Post vide G.D Entry No. 242 dated 14.5.1999. 6. The father of the deceased preferred the aforesaid claim petition praying for compensation from his employer as well as Insurance Company of the vehicle if any. 7. Both the owner and the insurer of the vehicle, was notified by the learned Commissioner and accordingly they contested the case by filing their respective written statement. In his written statement, the owner of the vehicle admitted the fact that the deceased was a handiman in the said vehicle and he used to draw a sum of Rs. 3,000/-per month but however, he has no personal knowledge about the accident. According to the owner, the vehicle was insured with the New India Assurance Company Ltd. at the relevant time, so the compensation, if any is to be indemnified by the Insurance Company. 8. The insurer/New India Assurance Co. 3,000/-per month but however, he has no personal knowledge about the accident. According to the owner, the vehicle was insured with the New India Assurance Company Ltd. at the relevant time, so the compensation, if any is to be indemnified by the Insurance Company. 8. The insurer/New India Assurance Co. Ltd. in their written statement raised as usual pleas that the claim petition is not maintainable and their liability can be enforced, only on strict proof of the accident as well as the fulfillment of policy condition and effective documents regarding policy etc. Additional written statement was also filed by the Insurance Company by submitting that the accident occurred in the morning 10 AM on 14.5.1999 and insurance policy was obtained by the owner of the vehicle in the evening after the accident. Accordingly it is contended that since the insurance policy was not effective at the relevant time of accident, so they are not liable to pay any compensation. 9. In support of their plea both the parties examined two witnesses. As per the evidence of the claimant and his another witness, PW-2 Md. Ali, the accident took place on 14.5.1999 at about 8 PM. Although, the claimant/PW-1 was not a eye witness to the occurrence but PW-2 claimed to be a eye witness to the occurrence and he asserted that he saw the accident from a little distance and said that it was the offending vehicle which knocked down the vehicle and as a result of which deceased died and sustained grievous injury on his person. The witnesses of the claimant have also stated that the deceased was working as a Handiman in the said Truck and used to draw a salary of Rs. 3,000/-per month. 10. The OP No. 1/owner of the vehicle although admitted about the status of the deceased as stated above but he has not adduced any evidence from his side. 11. In support of the plea taken by the Insurance Company they have examined two witnesses. DW-1 Bankim Das was the investigator appointed by New India Assurance Co. Ltd. has stated that during the investigation he obtained the written report from O/C, Kamalpur P.S on the body of his letter according to which the accident occurred on 14.5.1999 at 10 A.M vide Ext. 6(2) is the report of O/C, Kamalpur P.S. He also obtained another report from the Deptt. Ltd. has stated that during the investigation he obtained the written report from O/C, Kamalpur P.S on the body of his letter according to which the accident occurred on 14.5.1999 at 10 A.M vide Ext. 6(2) is the report of O/C, Kamalpur P.S. He also obtained another report from the Deptt. Of Forensic Science of GMCH and in the said report it was certified that the deceased was brought to the GMCH on 15.5.1999 at 11 AM. DW-1 further stated that the vehicle involved in the accident was insured with the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. on 14.5.1999 at 4 P.M whereas the accident took place at 10 A.M. 12. On the next to prove the fact that the vehicle was insured on the very day of occurrence after the incident in the afternoon, the Insurance Company examined the Manager of New India Assurance Company, Mr. Singh, who has stated that on 14.5.1999 at about 3.30 pm, the owner of the vehicle Gurmit Singh came to his office for taking insurance policy for his vehicle No. NL-02/A-3852 and accordingly he submitted the proposal for taking insurance policy. After considering the proposal form and after taking the premium on 14.5.1999 at 4 PM, policy was issued on the same day. He also stated that accident took place prior to the policy came into existence and hence Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. 13. Learned Commissioner after examining the evidence from both sides choose to accept the evidence of the claimant’s side and held that according to the Form 54 the accident took place at 8 PM on the day of occurrence and refused to accept the content of the FIR Ext-G that was produced by the Insurance Company. The learned Commissioner is of opinion that although the Insurance policy was made effective from 4 PM and the accident took place at 8 PM as per Form 54, so there is no merit in the plea taken by the Insurance Company. After appreciating all the evidence on record, the learned Commissioner by taking the income of the deceased as Rs. 1800/-and considering the age etc., awarded an amount of Rs. 1,95,219/-(Rupees One lakh ninety five thousand two hundred nineteen) as compensation to the claimant to be paid by the Insurance Company. 14. After appreciating all the evidence on record, the learned Commissioner by taking the income of the deceased as Rs. 1800/-and considering the age etc., awarded an amount of Rs. 1,95,219/-(Rupees One lakh ninety five thousand two hundred nineteen) as compensation to the claimant to be paid by the Insurance Company. 14. Being aggrieved, the appeal was preferred and admitted for hearing on the following substantial questions of law:- “(1) Whether the learned Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation has rightly interpreted Exhibit-1 (accident report) and Exhibit-B (FIR) in recording the finding that the accident occurred at 8 PM on 14-05-1999? (2) Whether the Insurance Company is liable to reimburse the compensation awarded by the learned Commissioner, workmen’s Compensation in view of the policy of insurance taken on 14-05-1999 at 4 PM.” 15. Learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Dutta has strenuously pointed out perversity of the case which has not been taken into account by the learned Commissioner while appreciating the evidence. Pointing towards the document that was exhibited and the evidence on record, it is stated that the learned Commissioner has erred in law by ignoring the content of the FIR which is certified by the O/C concerned. The observation and finding of the Commissioner that there was no mention of time of the accident in the FIR and that the occurrence took place at 8 P.M, as per Form 54 is perverse. 16. Regarding the Form 54, it has been pointed out that it is a very doubtful piece of evidence and time of accident was inserted afterwards, which reveals from the documents itself. Learned counsel drawn attention to the copies of Form 54, one shown blank regarding the time of occurrence while other document time is shown as 8 PM which indicates that time was inserted in collusion afterwards. The learned Commissioner has placed explicit reliance on the Form 54, which appears to be a doubtful document. 17. On the other hand, the Commissioner has not duly appreciated the evidence adduced by the Insurance Company. The Copy of insurance policy itself reflects that it was issued at 4 P.M on the day of occurrence and the said aspect has clearly explained by the witnesses of the Insurance Company that on the very day of accident the owner of the vehicle went to the office of the Insurance Company to insure the vehicle at 3.30 PM. The Copy of insurance policy itself reflects that it was issued at 4 P.M on the day of occurrence and the said aspect has clearly explained by the witnesses of the Insurance Company that on the very day of accident the owner of the vehicle went to the office of the Insurance Company to insure the vehicle at 3.30 PM. It is also quite surprising as to reason assigned by the Commissioner to ignore the insurance policy that was exhibited claimant’s side itself which reveals that insurance is not effective from 4 P.M dated 14.5.1999 to the midnight of 13.5.2000. 18. Further, in view of the policy produced by the claimant himself as well as plea taken by the Insurance Company, it made clear that the insurance was made after the accident. Although, the PW-2/witness of the claimant has stated about the time of accident but same cannot be accepted in view of FIR wherein time of accident is mentioned as 10 A.M. There is no reason to discard the endorsement made by the O/C concerned regarding the time of accident. It is very easy to produce a witness to say a few line in support of the case but same cannot always be believed and acted upon over the authentic document which has duly brought on record. 19. Taking into account all above, this Court is of opinion that the findings arrive at by the Commissioner is on wrong notion of law and facts and the necessary materials as pointed out above which is not discussed and appreciated properly by the learned Commissioner which has rendered the decision erroneous. In view of the findings that the insurance policy was made after the accident only, so it can be held that the time of accident the vehicle was without insurance, and in this aspect the Insurance Company is not at all liable to pay the compensation as has been held by the Commissioner. Accordingly the order is modified to the extent that the owner Sri Gurmit Singh is liable to pay the compensation and same amount can be recovered from him only. The Insurance Company is exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation. 20. At the time of admission of the appeal, this Court directed not to disburse the awarded amount to the claimant, until further order, if it has not been already disbursed by its order dated 18.9.2009. The Insurance Company is exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation. 20. At the time of admission of the appeal, this Court directed not to disburse the awarded amount to the claimant, until further order, if it has not been already disbursed by its order dated 18.9.2009. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that they have already deposited the amount before the Commissioner as on 20.1.2007 which is not disbursed to the claimant. Accordingly the learned Commissioner is hereby directed to refund the amount of Rs. 1,95,219/-(Rupees One lakh ninety five thousand two hundred nineteen) that was deposited by the New India Assurance Company Ltd. 21. Appeal is allowed, to the extent as indicated above. Return the LCR.