AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
HEARD Mr. Udgata the learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company. Perused the impugned order dated 20.6.1995 of the District Forum, Parlakhemundai directing the Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs. 30,240/- the awarded amount under the W.C. Case No. 29/83 in favour of one Pandav Patra an employee with the owner of the Mini Bus No. APS-2695. The same W.C. case was for compensation against the owner for an accident caused by the driver of the said vehicle. This present complainant therein did not deny the ownership of that vehicle and thus contested that case without disclosing the fact that the opposite party No. 2 in this case one Busi Bhaskaran Rao was the owner of the said vehicle. As a result of this, W.C. Commission passed an award against the present complainant with a finding that he was the owner of the vehicle in question. When the present complainant challenged the judgment of the Commission before the Hon''ble Orissa High Court, the High Court by their order dated 15.2.1988 in O.J.C. No. 582 of 1986 after applying their mind on merit dismissed the writ application which seems to be on merit. It seems subsequently the present complainant with a view to get rid of the liability to pay compensation filed a Title Suit No. 10/ 1988 before the Sub-Judge, Parlakhemundai with a prayer for declaring him as not the owner of the Bus in question and that the said Pandav Patra was not the employee under him and also for declaring the order of the W.C. Commission as illegal. Thereafter, he filed the present complaint before the District Forum claiming that the amount paid to the said employee should be paid by the Insurance Company. After hearing the case, the District Forum has directed the Insurance Company to pay the amount with compensation of Rs. 3,000/- and cost of Rs. 2,000/-.
HAVING heard the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company and on going through the various documents on record, we find the case against the Insurance Company is not maintainable because the present complainant was not the insured under the policy in question and did not contest the case before the W.C. Commission stating therein that he was not the owner of the vehicle and was not liable to pay the amount. It was incumbent for him to contest the W.C. case by taking a stand that it was not he but Busi Bhaskar Rao was the owner of the vehicle and in that case, had it been proved before the W.C. Commission that it was Busi Bhaskar Rao was the insured, the W.C. Court would have saddled the compensation on the said Busi Bhaskar Rao. HAVING not done now he cannot turn and say that the Insurance Company would be liable. If he was not insured under the policy, he cannot claim compensation against the Insurance Company. Hence, such a case is not maintainable at his instance. So far the recovery of the money which he had paid because of his own folly, he may proceed against the real owner of the vehicle i.e. Busi Bhaskar Rao provided the claim is still within the period of limitation. We accordingly allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order. No cost. Appeal allowed.