AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.S. Verma, J.—Heard Mr. M.K. Goyal, Advocate, for appellant and Mr. M.C. Kandpal, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. S.S. Chaudhary, Advocate for respondents. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 2.8.2007 passed by Workmen''s Compensation Commissioner/Assistant Labour Commissioner Kumaun Region, District Nainital in W.C.A. No. 36 of 2005 Smt. Jareena Ansari v. Mohd. Matloob and others.
This appeal was got admitted on the following substantial question of law:--
(i) Whether under Workmen''s Compensation Act, 1923 Insurance Company can be held liable to indemnify (compensate) the legal heirs of the deceased who was not the employee of the insured?
(ii) Whether under Workmen''s Compensation Act, 1923 Insurance Company can be held liable to indemnify the legal heirs of the deceased who is the employee of the person, who is neither the insured nor the registered owner of the vehicle involved in accident?
The sole question which is to be decided in this appeal is whether without transfer of policy in the name of subsequent owner of the vehicle the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the compensation in case of an employee, i.e., the driver in the case at hand.
Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that it is admitted case that deceased was employee of Mohd. Matloob, the subsequent owner; however, the policy was issued in the name of Mahesh Chand, the previous owner and who was the registered owner of the vehicle in dispute. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon a judgment of Apex Court passed in the case of Rikhi Ram and Another Vs. Smt. Sukhrania and Others, which deals about the liability in case of third party against transfer of the vehicle.
I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the entire record and have also gone through the case-law cited by the learned counsel for petitioner.
So far as para-6 of the judgment (supra) is concerned, in my view, that is not applicable in the case at hand since the driver of the vehicle is a victim. He would be treated third party even for the purpose of earlier owner of the vehicle.
This policy has not been obtained by the owner of the private car under the Workmen Compensation Act. It is a general insurance to cover the driver who is driving the vehicle. The ground raised in the appeal is not tenable. In the light of aforesaid, the substantial questions of law are answered in negative against the appellant. Accordingly, the appeal lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. The Workmen Compensation Commissioner is directed to release the amount in favour of the claimants.
Interim order passed by this Court dated 11.9.2007 is vacated.