1. As per office report dated 8.2.2021 notice sent for service on the private respondents through registered post A/D on 1.1.2021 have not returned back either unserved nor any acknowledgement has been received after service and also no one put in appearance for respondents. In view of such facts, service is presumed on the respondents in terms of the provisions contained in Chapter VIII Rule 12 of the Allahabad High Court Rules.
2. As nobody is appearing for the respondents, they are proceeded ex parte.
3. This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company being aggrieved of the award dated 11.11.2019 passed by the learned Commissioner under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 and Assistant Labour Commissioner, Bareilly in Case No. 65/ECA-2017 on the ground that claimants could not prove their relationship of employer and employee with that of respondent no. 5 in the present appeal.
4. Sri Maurya submits that neither employer appeared before the Tribunal nor any written statement was filed on behalf of the employer. No evidence was adduced to show that deceased Amar Singh was employed as driver on truck bearing registration no. NL 02 Q/0784 when his truck was hit by another truck bearing registration no. HR 38-N/8034. It has come on record that Insurance Company had filed its written statement and had usually denied the factum of the accident, insurance etc and had denied relationship of employee and employer between insured and the deceased.
5. However, Tribunal observed that claimant has filed copy of the first information report, charge sheet, spot map, postmortem report, panchayatnama, pay slip and notice under section 10, alongwith the proof of age, driving licence, certificate of registration, permit and fitness and they were though denied by the Insurance Company, but Insurance Company did not produce any evidence to dispute their genuineness. In view of such facts when claimant had produced all the documents to prove the factum of accident and had also demonstrated that deceased was having valid driving licence to drive the vehicle and said vehicle was having proper fitness at the relevant point of time then there was no occasion for the Tribunal to dispute the factum of the employment especially when respondent no. 2 despite service of notice had not appeared before the Tribunal and Insurance Company failed to produce the insured i.e. owner of the truck to dispute the factum of employment. It has come on record that no evidence was led by the Insurance Company to controvert the submission made by the claimant.
6. A perusal of the award also demonstrates that learned Tribunal appreciated facts of the case in the correct perspective and no substantial questions of law is made out in the present case to admit this appeal. The appeal fails and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 9.2.2021 S.K.S.