National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Raj Bala & Anr.

1. This first appeal filed by the Insurance Company under Section 30 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 challenges the judgment of the Commissioner dated 05.01.2010 by which the Commissioner allowed the compensation claim filed by respondent no. 1 herein (claimant before the Commissioner). 2014:DHC:685

2. The claim petition was filed by respondent no. 1 herein (applicant/petitioner before the Commissioner), who is the mother of the deceased Sh. Dalbir Singh, who died on 21.2.2000 when he was driving the vehicle Tata Sumo bearing registration number DL-6C-A- 1372 when an attempt was made to hijack the said vehicle near Estate in U.P., resulting in death of Sh. Dalbir Singh along with another person Sh. Rishi Prakash.

3. There were two respondents before the Commissioner. Respondent no. 2 before the Commissioner was the present appellant- Insurance Company. Respondent no. 1before the Commissioner was the employer. The case of the employer was that he was not a real owner of the vehicle but only a pledgee of the vehicle because the real owner Sh. Rishi Prakash had taken a loan from the respondent no. 1 before the Commissioner (respondent no.2 herein) and the vehicle was transferred in the name of the respondent no. 2 herein only as a security.

4. The Commissioner has noted in the impugned judgment that it is undisputed that the vehicle was insured and the accident being the murder happened during the currency of the policy. The Commissioner has also noted that an application for Superdari (Ex. CW-1/10) filed by the employer-respondent no. 1 whereby he took back the possession of the vehicle by stating specifically that he was the owner of the vehicle, and therefore, the Commissioner disbelieved the case of the employerrespondent no. 2 herein being only a pledgee and not the owner of the vehicle and not the employer of the deceased Sh. Dalbir Singh. Also the Commissioner has referred to the factum of filing of the FIR no. 83/2000 with the Police Station Raja Ka Rampur, District Etah, U.P. under Sections 302/201 IPC referring to the murder of the deceased Sh. Dalbir Singh on account of an attempt to hijack the vehicle owner at Etah.

5. In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment of the Commissioner and no substantial question of law arises in this case to entertain the appeal under Section 30 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923. The appeal and application for stay are therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

FEBRUARY 4, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J godara