NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. RAJIT KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A claim petition came to be filed by the respondent No. 1 before the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (Assistant Labour Commissioner), Jammu (for short 'the Authority'), on 16.1.2004, wherein he claimed that during the course of his employment with respondent No. 2 as driver, he carried passengers from Akhnoor to Bhar Devta and Takal Battal. It was also claimed by respondent No. 1 that near Ram Nagar Morh National Highway at about 10 a.m., a cow came in front of the vehicle which was driven by respondent No. 1 and in order to save the cow which had suddenly come in front of the vehicle, he had to immediately apply brakes and resultantly the vehicle skidded off the road and fell into a gorge. It was also claimed that he received injuries all over his body which included fracture of his right hand. He specifically claimed that the injuries, which he had sustained, arose out of and in the course of his employment with respondent No. 2. It was also claimed that the vehicle was insured with appellant herein at the time of accident. He claimed compensation for having suffered permanent disability and requested that a direction be issued for payment of compensation in the amount of Rs. 3,00,000 with 18 per cent interest. It was also claimed that respondent No. 1 was receiving Rs. 4,000 per month as wages.

(2.) On notice issued the appellant insurance company filed objections in which it was specifically pleaded that it was not respondent-claimant but one Harjit Kumar alias Raju who was driving the vehicle which met with an accident. It was also pleaded that the claim petition has not been drafted in accordance with the Workmen's Compensation Act. Further plea was taken by the appellant insurance company in the objections that in absence of documentary evidence of the claimant-respondent No. 1 being under the employment of respondent No. 2, the claim petition was not maintainable. It was also pleaded that claim petition being time-barred merits dismissal. Further plea was taken that at the time of accident, the vehicle was not insured with the insurance company. One more plea was taken that in view of breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the appellant insurance company was not liable to indemnify the insured in the event the direction was issued by the Authority for payment of compensation.

(3.) On the pleadings of the parties, the Authority framed three issues, which are taken note of: