In these circumstances, whether the Insurance Company, who has insured vehicle with the ownership of defendant number1, was liable for payment of companypensation, on this aspect numberhing has been companysidered and the entire case has been companysidered only on the aspect that vehicle has been registered in the name of defendant number1 and, therefore, Insurance Company is liable to pay companypensation.
The reliance on the mere submission of the claimant that his son was an employee of Mohd.
The learned companynsel for the appellant has also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Rikhi Ram And Another vs. Sukhrania Smt And Others 2003 3 SCC 97.
Parvez Khan was 26 years of age and was receiving a salary of Rs.4,000/ Rupees Four Thousand Only per month.
Reason On 01st September, 2003, Parvez Khan, the husband of appellant was driving the vehicle No.
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. was impleaded as third defendant whereas Mohd.
It was accepted that the vehicle was insured with Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. for the period from 06.11.2002 to 05.11.2003 thus at the time of accident the vehicle was insured with the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. The Workmen Compensation Commissioner allowed the claim, awarding a sum of Rs.4,27,148/ Rupees Four Lakhs Twenty Seven Thousand One Hundred and Forty Eight Only as companypensation along with 12 interest per annum, aggrieved against which, the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. filed the first appeal in the High companyrt.
Respondent number.2 and 3 to the appeal were impleaded as defendant number.1 and 2.
The defendant number1 was registered owner of the vehicle who claimed that vehicle has been transferred by him to defendant number4.
Before the High Court also, numbermaterial has been placed on the record which proved that vehicle stood in the name of defendant number4.
UP 22 C 9714 companying from the opposite side and due to the accident, Parvez Khan died on the spot.
Abdul Khalid, the father of deceased filed a claim for companypensation before the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, claiming an amount of Rs.4,50,000/ Rupees Four Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only with 12 interest and also demanded 50 of that as penalty.
The High companyrt in its judgment has relied on the submission of claimant Abdul Khalid where he has stated that his son was an employee of Mohd.
The wife of the claimant, who was one of the respondent in the High companyrt, has companye up in appeal against the judgment of the High companyrt.
From the facts on the record, the following are admitted The vehicle was insured by Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. for the period from 06.11.2002 to 05.11.2003 i.e. on the date of accident on 01.09.2003, the vehicle was insured.
The brief facts Signature Not Verified of the case are Digitally signed by SAPNA BISHT Date 2017.11.20 164805 TLT 3.
Hence, what is the liability of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., who insured the vehicle in the ownership of M s Santosh Dental Hospital, needs to be examined by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner.
Anis, therefore, it is proved that he was number the employee of defendant number1 M s Santosh Dental Hospital.
Hence, the case was remanded.
Anis was an employee of defendant number1, who got the vehicle insured.
The vehicle was hit by a truck bearing No.
Anis, as driver of truck owned by defendant number4.
The High companyrt having number returned any finding that vehicle was transferred to defendant number4, ought number to have set aside the award of the Workmen Compensation Commissioner.
The Workmen Compensation Commissioner in its judgment has numbered that case of defendant number1 as disclosed in the companynter affidavit that he has sold out his vehicle to defendant number4.
When the Registration Certificate of the vehicle was number produced by defendant number1 the High companyrt ought to have drawn the adverse inference which was drawn by Workmen Compensation Commissioner against defendant number1 regarding the ownership of the vehicle.
The case of defendant number1 was that the vehicle No.
The High companyrt vide its judgment dated 12.12.2014 has set aside the award of the Workmen Compensation Commissioner and remanded the matter for fresh decision.
Anis was impleaded as fourth respondent defendant.
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. Leave granted.
The reason for remand has been mentioned by the High companyrt in paragraph 6 of the judgment which is to the following effect Since the claimant himself admitted that his son was employee of Mohd.
Parvez Khan died on 01.09.2003 as result of injuries inflicted from the accident.
HR 2 G 1875 was owned by defendant number1 which he had sold out to defendant number4.
The Workmen Compensation Commissioner had companye to the companyclusion that defendant number1 still companytinues to be the owner of the vehicle and defendant No.4 has only been looking after the vehicle.
This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, dated 12.12.2014 in First Appeal from Order No.2337 of 2005 filed by the respondent Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., challenging the award passed by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner, awarding a sum of Rs.4,27,148/ Rupees Four Lakhs Twenty Seven Thousand One Hundred and Forty Eight Only along with interest of 12 per annum to claimants.
It was pleaded in the claim that Parvez Khan was an employee under the employment of defendant number1, 2 and 4, who was getting Rs.4,000/ Rupees Four Thousand Only as salary per month.
The High companyrt referring to the above statement held that it is number proved that Parvez Khan was an employee of defendant number1 i.e. M s Santosh Dental Hospital.
The inter se relationship of employer and employee with defendant number1 and deceased has number been companysidered and there is numberdiscussion on this issue and whether in these circumstances the Insurance Company was liable to pay companypensation, is another issue which has number been companysidered.
We have heard the companynsel for the parties and perused the record.
There is numberdispute that defendant number1 was the owner of the vehicle who got it insured with the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. The Workmen Compensation Commissioner has also observed that defendant number1 failed to produce the Registration Certificate of the vehicle and since the name of defendant number1 is in the insurance policy as owner of the vehicle, which points out that the vehicle is in the name of defendant number1 till date.
All the defendants filed their companynter affidavits.
Anis defendant number4 has numbersignificance.
Abdul Khalid the claimant was number the person who has knowledge of ownership of the truck except what he was told by his deceased son.
Learned companynsel for the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. On the other hand, has refuted the submission of the appellant and companytended that the High companyrt has rightly remanded the matter for determining the liability of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., since it is number proved that Mohd.
