AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rakesh Garg, J.—Vide impugned order dated 26.10.2010, the Competent Authority under the Workmen''s Compensation Act, Patiala, awarded compensation to respondents No. 1 and 2 on account of death of one Balwinder Singh @ Bindu who was an employee of respondents No. 3 and 4 on their Combine Harvester bearing registration No. HR 05 H 2724 which was insured with the appellant. As per the averments, on 25.01.2009, Balwinder Singh S/o. Rulia Ram, was going from Bhavnagar to Pranchi on Combine Harvester No. HR 05 H 2724. Balwinder Singh son of Rulia Ram was driving the said Combine Harvester whereas deceased who was sitting as a helper/co-driver, Combine Harvester met with an accident and Balwinder Singh-deceased who was sitting next to the driver fell down on the road and received injuries and died on the spot. FIR was also registered on the statement of Balwinder Singh, driver of the Combine wherein he has stated that deceased Balwinder Singh who was working as helper and was sitting with him had died during the course of employment with respondents No. 3 and 4 due to the accident of the Harvester Combine.
The claim petition was resisted by respondents No. 3 and 4 by filing written statement denying that deceased Balwinder Singh @ Bindu was ever employed with them as driver, although it was admitted that Harvester Combine had met with an accident on 25.01.2009.
The appellant filed a separate written statement denying its liability to pay Submitting that driver of the Harvester Combine bearing registration No. HR 05 H 2724 was not having any valid and effective driving licence at the time of alleged accident, further submitting that the deceased was not an employee of respondents No. 3 and 4. However, it was admitted that the Insurance Company had charged Rs. 50/- on account of covering legal liability of two persons for operation/maintenance of the said combine. Other averments were also denied and dismissal of the claim application was sought.
On the basis of the pleading of the parties, the following issues were framed:-
Whether the deceased Balwinder Singh @ Bindu died in an accident during and in the course of employment with the respondents No. 1 & 2? OPA
Whether the deceased was not having valid and legal/effective driving licence at the time of accident? OPR 3
Whether the applicants are entitled to compensation as claimed? If yes, with details and from whom? OPA
Relief, if any.
The Competent Authority after considering the evidence on record held that Balwinder Singh died on account of accident arising out of and in the course of his employment and the claimants were entitled to compensation amount of Rs. 3,94,120/- and the appellant along with respondents No. 3 and 4 were liable to pay jointly and severally. It was further held that claimants were also entitled of interest @ 6% per annum from the date of accident till its actual realisation. The interest was to be paid jointly and severally by the appellant as well as owners i.e. respondents No. 3 and 4 in the instant appeal.
The appellant-Insurance Company has filed the instant appeal challenging the aforesaid award on the ground that there was no relationship of employer and employee between the claimant and owner of the insured vehicle and moreover, no driving licence of the driver has come on record and therefore, they were not liable to pay the compensation. It was further argued that appellant was not liable to indemnify the insured in the instant case as no additional premium was paid to cover the liability of additional driver and thus, the following substantial questions of law arise in this appeal:-
Whether there was any employer employee relationship between the deceased and the owner of the Combine Harvester?
Whether the appellant Insurance Company was liable to make the payment of the compensation awarded in the background of the facts and circumstances of the case?
Whether the appellant would be liable even though the deceased was not holding a valid and effective driving licence?
On the other hand, learned counsel representing the respondents No. 1 and 2 has vehemently supported the impugned order.
At this stage, it may be noticed that owners in their written statement have though denied the relationship of employee and employer between claimant and them, however, it has come on record that Balwinder Singh son of Rulia Ram was driving the vehicle in question at the time of accident who has further stated that the deceased was sitting along with him on the vehicle at the time of accident as a helper/co-driver and had suffered injuries due to accident and had died.
The aforesaid fact has not been controverted either by the appellant or by respondents No. 3 and 4.
The argument raised on behalf of the appellant that driving licence has not come on record is baseless as liability to pay compensation to the claimants cannot be denied on this ground. Moreover, the deceased was not driving the vehicle at the time of the accident of the vehicle in question and therefore, the argument raised is without any merit. Moreover, vide impugned order, the liability to pay has been held jointly and severally and in any case, the appellant may seek any appropriate remedy against the owner/employer in accordance with law. It may further be noticed that admittedly the appellant was paid premium covering risk of two persons for maintenance/operation of the Harvester Combine and therefore, it cannot escape its liability.
No other argument has been raised.
Thus, no substantial questions of law, as raised, arise in this appeal.
Dismissed.