Full Text
Date ofJudgment: 30.10.2018
TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD Appellant
Through: Dr. Naipal Singh, Advocate.
Through: ;:]%s;lSupam CGSC with , '^Ms; Sai^^ 0ua &Ms. Nehul Sharma, j^.dvp^cate'ifor R-2 &3.
C.M. No.44652/2018 (for exentt)ti6ii)'^ Allowed, subjectto alljust exceptions.
The application is disposed- of., C.M. No.44653/2018 (for delay in re-filing) i
There is delay of 31 days in re-filing thepresent appeal.
For the reasons explained inthe application, the delay in re filing the appeal is condoned. The application is disposed of.
C.M. No.44651/2018 (for delay in filing)
There is delayof 13 days in filing the presentappeal.
2018:DHC:9160 vy For the reasons explained in the application, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The application is disposed of.
FAQ No.501/2018 & C.M. No.44650/2018 (for stay)
JUDGMENT
1. The impugned award dated 18.6.2018 passed by the CommissionerEmployees' Compensation ('CEC') awarding a sum of Rs.7,58,560/- with interest in favour of respondent No.l/claimant on account of death of her husband Vinod in a road accident dated 12.6.2016 during his course of employment while working as a conductor on Tata canter No.HR 55W 6676 is the subject-matter of challenge in this appeal. v'v,- ^
2. The deceased Vinod was. -wdfBrig as a conductor with respondent No.2/owner of the,s^id Tata.canter. On 12.6.2016, when the said canter with the deceased as a Conductor thereon reached near Rai Chowk, Sonipat (Haryana),..k a tractor bearing No.HR lOK 4850 and an FIR N[6].i68; 4.10.2016 under Section 279/304A IPG was registereM>t|Rq]IB^;!Si^fbn Rai, Sonipat (Haryana). The deceased sustained fatal injuries. The claim filed before the CEC was contested by the oM^ner (respondent and insurer (the appellant).
3. The impugned award has been assailed by the appellant solely on the ground that the driver ofthe canter in question was not holding a valid and effective driving licence (DL) in violation of theterms and conditions of the insurance policy and as such they being the insurer cannot beheldliable to make thepayment ofthe compensation. FAO 501/2018 Page 2 of[4]
4. The learned counsel for. the appellant contends that they have issued a notice dated 19.9.2017 by registered AD post to respondent No.2/owner/insured to provide them copy of the policy, permit and fitness in respect of the said canter and his driving licence. He urges that despite notice, the respondent No.2 failed to provide them the copy of the DL of the driver who was driving the said canter at the relevant time. r 5. The respondent No.2/owner of the canter has appeared in the witness box before the CEG on 11.12.20.1-7. He was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the, appellant He was not cross-examined by the appellant/insurer to elicit asjt^ driving the c^ter in question at the relevant timejkrid' wlifether-'such person had a DL. Not even a single suggestion was ptit to ithe: witness that the driver of the canter was not having a valid.and $ftfee DL at the time of the accident in question. The elicited in the crossexamination ofthe claimant|^3^t|^^i\^^vx)fthe canter. Even in the present appeal the insurer/appeifant has, without ascertaining name of ^ the driver of the said canter, had taken a groMd that the driver of the said canter was not holdirtg "a 'vaM' and effective DL. It is incomprehensible to take a ground in the grounds of appeal without ascertaining the name ofthe driver that the driver ofthe canter was not having a valid and effective DL. The ground taken in the appeal is without any basis and material. FAO501/2018 Page 3 of[4]:r
6. Therefore, I find no merit inthe appeal which along with C.M. No.44650/2018 is dismissed with no order as to costs. Copy of the orderbe sentto the parties as also to the CEC.
OCTOBER 30,2018 'AA' FAO 501/2018,ii; -ll"t,yf,w. >• A 'f '•-.wj..u'ii-sr,is ""i' 1' 1 ' Jz.-—,; *'-1 - (VINOD GOEL) JUDGE Page 4 of[4]