Shriram General Insurance Company Limited v. Nasim & Anr.

1. By way of present application filed under Sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act read with Section 151 CPC, the appellant seeks condonation of delay of 95 days in filing the appeal.

2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 95 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

3. Application is disposed of. FAO 26/2023, CM APPL. 5758/2023 & CM APPL. 5760/2023

1. By way of present appeal filed under Section 30 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter, the ‘EC Act’), the appellant has assailed the order dated 30.08.2022 passed by the learned Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation in Case No.CEC/I/57/WD/15/200, whereby claim petition filed by respondent No.1/claimant seeking injury compensation was allowed and the appellant directed to deposit Rs.10,75,200/- alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. w.e.f. 02.08.2010 till its realization.

2. After initial submissions, Mr. Sameer Nandwani, learned counsel for the appellant, has restricted his challenge to the contention that the failure of respondent No.1 to produce his driving license vitiated the award of compensation.

3. A perusal of the present appeal and the documents filed alongwith it would show that a number of grounds have been raised by the appellant relating to limitation, res-judicata etc. However, the same have not been pressed during the course of submissions.

4. The facts, in nutshell, are that in the claim petition, it was claimed that respondent No.1/claimant was employed as a driver on a truck bearing No.HR-46-B-3320 which was owned by respondent No.2. While the said truck was being driven by respondent No.1 from Muzaffar Nagar to Roorkee, Haridwar during the course of employment, it collided with a container. In the accident, an iron angle penetrated through the skull of respondent No.1 and he received grievous injuries on his head, right eye, neck, left hand and right leg. Respondent No.1 was taken to a private hospital at Meerut whereafter he was brought to LNJP Hospital, New Delhi. He remained admitted in the said hospital for a long time and was operated on many times. It was further claimed that respondent No.1 was aged 20 years at the time of the accident and was drawing wages @Rs.8000/- per month + Rs.200/- per day as food allowance.

5. Records reveal that the truck in question was owned by respondent No.2. It was insured with the present appellant vide policy No.10003/31/10/072143 that was valid and subsisting from 31.07.2009 to 30.07.2010. Additional premium under the EC Act was paid to the appellant by respondent No.2.

6. The appellant had filed its written statement but no evidence was led by it. A letter, however, was placed on record thereby confirming that the accident took place and resulted in damage to the truck, whereafter vehicle damage claim was paid to the owner i.e. respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 also did not lead any evidence.

7. Considering the narrow complex controversy in the present case, a specific query was put to learned counsel for the appellant as to whether at the time of payment towards O.D. claim, facts were verified. Learned counsel for the appellant fairly admitted that during the inquiry proceedings, license of respondent No.1 and other relevant documents were duly verified. Pertinently, at the time of cross-examination, respondent No.1 had also denied the suggestion that he did not have any driving license.

8. In the light of the facts on record, the solitary contention raised on behalf of the appellant is meritless and stands rejected. This Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned order and the same is upheld. The appeal is dismissed. Let the compensation amount be released to respondent No.1/claimant, if not already done. Miscellaneous applications are disposed of as infructuous.

9. A copy of this judgment be communicated to the concerned Commissioner for information.

JUDGE FEBRUARY 21, 2023