Delhi High Court
National Insurance Co Ltd. vs Bishambar Singh & Ors. on 29 July, 2016
$~28
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: July 29, 2016
+ MAC.APP. 579/2016 & C.M. 27047-48/2018
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. C.S. Parashar, Advocate
versus
BISHAMBAR SINGH & ORS. .... Respondents
Through: Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
ORAL
1. The impugned judgment of 11th May, 2016 grants compensation of
`12,31,000/- to the respondents-claimants on account of a fatal accident.
The income of the deceased has been taken to be `16,000/- p.m. in the
impugned judgment. The appellant is the insurer company, who
challenges the impugned judgment on the ground that the employment
certificate of 10th August, 2012 is fake and so trial court has errenously
relied upon it.
2. Attention of this Court is drawn by learned counsel for appellant to
the deposition of PW-1 to submit that father of the deceased had
categorically stated that he was not in possession of any appointment
letter of the deceased. It was also submitted that the employer (PW-2) in
his evidence was unable to produce the income tax documents to show if
MAC.A.579/2016 Page 1
any salary was paid to the deceased nor any appointment letter has been
produced by the employer and so on the basis of fake employment
certificate grant of compensation to respondents-claimants is bad in law
and thus it is urged that the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside.
3. It is pointed out by learned counsel for appellant that vide various
orders (Annexure 4 colly), the trial court had directed that the interest for
the period of delay from 18th July, 2014 till 11th November, 2015 will not
be granted to the respondents-claimants in the event of their succeeding
in the claim petition. It is pointed out that the impugned Award in
contravention of the interim orders (Annexure-4 colly) as it grants interest
for the entire period from the date of filing of claim petition, till
realization. Lastly, it is submitted that the rate of interest of 12% p.a. is
quite exorbitant and reasonable interest @ 9% p.a. ought to awarded.
4. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned order and the material
on record, I find that merely because the witness has not brought income
tax documents or had not brought the appointment letter of the deceased,
would not justify an inference that the employment certificate of 10th
August, 2012 was fake. If appellant was keen to take the plea of
employment certificate being fake then the appellant ought to have
insisted upon the witness - PW-2 to produce the tax records or to have
asked the witness as to whether he can produce it or not. On the similar
reasoning, the non bringing of appointment letter would not justify in
raising the inference of employment certificate being fake.
5. Section 30 of The Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 mandates
that no appeal shall lie against an order like the instant one unless a
MAC.A.579/2016 Page 2
substantial question of law is raised. Although interim orders of trial
court indicate that respondent-claimant would not be entitled for the
interest for period of delay, but this by itself does not raise any substantial
question of law. Considering the inflation aspect, grant of interest for the
delay period can be overlooked. Even the rate of interest granted does
not appear to be unreasonable as it is not shown as to how the rate of
interest awarded is unjustified.
6. In the considered opinion of this Court, no substantial question of
law is raised by the Insurer in this appeal. This appeal and the
applications are accordingly dismissed.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JULY 29, 2016
r
MAC.A.579/2016 Page 3
