National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Smt. Raj Bala & Anr.
2014 Latest Caselaw 687 Del

7

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                  FAO No. 217/2010 & CM 10035/2010 (stay)

%                                                4th February, 2014

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.                    ......Appellant
                 Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate

                          VERSUS

SMT. RAJ BALA & ANR.                       ...... Respondents

Through: Mr. Sandeep Gupta, Advocate for respondent No. 1.

Ms. Geeta Vohra, Advocate for respondent No. 2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1. This first appeal filed by the Insurance Company under Section 30

of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 challenges the judgment of

the Commissioner dated 05.01.2010 by which the Commissioner

allowed the compensation claim filed by respondent no. 1 herein

(claimant before the Commissioner).

2. The claim petition was filed by respondent no. 1 herein

(applicant/petitioner before the Commissioner), who is the mother of

the deceased Sh. Dalbir Singh, who died on 21.2.2000 when he was

driving the vehicle Tata Sumo bearing registration number DL-6C-A-

1372 when an attempt was made to hijack the said vehicle near Estate in

U.P., resulting in death of Sh. Dalbir Singh along with another person

Sh. Rishi Prakash.

3. There were two respondents before the Commissioner.

Respondent no. 2 before the Commissioner was the present appellant-

Insurance Company. Respondent no. 1before the Commissioner was the

employer. The case of the employer was that he was not a real owner of

the vehicle but only a pledgee of the vehicle because the real owner Sh.

Rishi Prakash had taken a loan from the respondent no. 1 before the

Commissioner (respondent no.2 herein) and the vehicle was transferred

in the name of the respondent no. 2 herein only as a security.

4. The Commissioner has noted in the impugned judgment that it is

undisputed that the vehicle was insured and the accident being the

murder happened during the currency of the policy. The Commissioner

has also noted that an application for Superdari (Ex. CW-1/10) filed by

the employer-respondent no. 1 whereby he took back the possession of

the vehicle by stating specifically that he was the owner of the vehicle,

and therefore, the Commissioner disbelieved the case of the employer-

respondent no. 2 herein being only a pledgee and not the owner of the

vehicle and not the employer of the deceased Sh. Dalbir Singh. Also the

Commissioner has referred to the factum of filing of the FIR no. 83/2000

with the Police Station Raja Ka Rampur, District Etah, U.P. under

Sections 302/201 IPC referring to the murder of the deceased Sh. Dalbir

Singh on account of an attempt to hijack the vehicle owner at Etah.

5. In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any illegality or perversity

in the impugned judgment of the Commissioner and no substantial

question of law arises in this case to entertain the appeal under Section

30 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923. The appeal and

application for stay are therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear

their own costs.

FEBRUARY 4, 2014                              VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
godara