National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Naseem Akhtar
2021 Latest Caselaw 1140 j&K

                                         Sr. No.5
       HIGH COURT OF JAMMU& KASHMIRAND LADAKH
                       AT JAMMU

                                             MA No. 84/2009
                                             IA No.119/2009

National Insurance Co. Ltd.                                ......Appellant(s)

                                 Through:- Mr.C.S Gupta, Advocate.

                           V/s

Naseem Akhtar                                              .....Respondent(s)

                                 Through:- Ms. Pummy Thakur Advocate
                                           vice Mr.Ashish Sharma,
                                           Advocate.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TASHI RABSTAN, JUDGE

                                 JUDGMENT

17.09.2021

1. The present appeal has been filed against the award dated

23.07.2008 passed by the Commissioner under Workmen Compensation Act

(Assistant Labour Commissioner, Poonch) hereinafter referred to as „the

Commissioner‟ in file No. I/W.C.A/08, title "Naseem Akhtar Vs. National

Insurance Company Ltd.". The claim petition was filed by the respondent

herein before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Poonch and the same was

allowed with a direction to the insurance company to pay compensation

amounting to Rs.4, 27, 140/- to the respondent-claimant.

2. The facts in brief as narrated in the appeal are that:

The respondent herein had preferred a claim petition bearing file

No. I/W.C.A/08 on 09.04.2008 to seek compensation under the provisions of

Workmen Compensation Act on account of death of her husband which

arouse out of and during the course of his employment while plying the

vehicle bearing registration No.JK12-1047 and the said vehicle was duly

insured with appellant herein vide policy No.3111361 dated 19.10.2007.

The husband of the respondent-claimant namely, deceased Mohd.

Jhangir S/o Mohd. Jan R/o Nangali Tehsil Haveli District Poonch was

working as a driver and 11.11.2007 while he was plying the aforesaid vehicle

owned by one Balbir Singh S/o S. Amar Singh R/o Bawli Nangale Tehsil

Haveli, District Poonch on Mandi Sawjian Road when reached Gantar

Sawjain, the vehicle met with an accident due to which the husband of the

claimant died on spot. It is averred that the deceased was having monthly

income of Rs.6,000/-. The Commissioner had framed the following issues:

i) Whether the applicant was working as a driver with the vehicle bearing No. JK-12-1047 ? OPP

ii) Weather the accident arouse out of and

during the course of his employment ? OPP

iii) If it is proved then age and wage of the

deceased at the time of accident.

As the insurance company remained unrepresented before the

Commissioner despite service was effected, therefore, the claimant was

directed to produce the evidence in the support of his contention.The

impugned award was passed on the basis of the pleadings and the evidence

led by the claimant.

3. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered

their submissions and perused the record placed along with this appeal.

4. From the award it is evident that after appreciation of the evidence

led by the claimant, on going through the record annexed with claim petition

and on the basis of statements of the witnesses, the learned Commissioner

came to the conclusion that the deceased was working as a driver of aforesaid

vehicle and was having the monthly income as Rs.4000/- and therefore

passed the award amounting to Rs. 4,27,140/- in favour of the claimant-

respondent. The owner of the vehicle had insured his vehicle with the

insurance company, therefore, it was directed by the learned Commissioner

that the compensation amount of Rs.4,27,140/- shall be paid by the insurance

company within a period of two months, failing which it was also directed

that the penalty as well as the interest shall also be imposed upon the

insurance company.

5. It is crystal clear that the impugned award has been passed by the

learned Commissioner after proper appreciation of the evidence placed

before it and after considering the statements of the witnesses, therefore, I am

of the considered view that no interference is warranted in the impugned

award dated 23.07.2008 passed by the learned Commissioner as being no

substantial question of law is involved. As such, this appeal is devoid of any

merit and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. The awarded amount along

with interest accrued thereon shall be released in favour of the respondent-

claimant under rules and as per the impugned award dated 23.07.2008, after

her proper verification and identification.

6. Dismissed as above.

(Tashi Rabstan) Judge JAMMU 17.09.2021 Surinder Whether the order is speaking? Yes/No Whether the order is reportable? Yes/No

SURINDER KUMAR 2021.09.20 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document