Court No. - 4
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2698 of 2012 Appellant :- Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Respondent :- Smt. Safedi Devi And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Pranjal Mehrotra Counsel for Respondent :- Ankur Goyal
Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Irshad Ali,J.
Heard Sri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Ankur Goyal, learned counsel for the claimant/respondent nos. 1 and 2.
None has appeared on behalf of respondent no. 3, owner of the offending vehicle.
This first appeal from order has been preferred by the appellant-Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. against the judgement and order dated 09.05.2012 passed by Workmen's Compensation Commissioner and Assistant Labour Commissioner, Agra region, Agra by which the W.C. Case No. 139 of 2011 filed by the claimant/respondent nos. 1 and 2 claiming a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- as compensation was allowed in part and a sum of Rs. 5,57,964/- was awarded as compensation against the appellant-Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. and the respondent no. 3 and the appellant-Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. has been directed to satisfy the awarded amount of compensation.
It is contended by Sri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel for the appellant that once the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner and Assistant Labour Commissioner came to the conclusion that the driver of the offending vehicle bearing registration no. U.P. 85 Q-9096 did not possess a valid driving license to drive a vehicle in which inflammable substance is transported, it should have granted the right to the appellant-Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. to recover the amount of compensation from the respondent no. 3, owner of the offending vehicle after paying the same to the claimant/respondent nos. 1 and 2. The finding recorded by the trial court that since the claim of the respondent no. 3, owner of the offending vehicle for the damage caused to the offending vehicle in the accident had been allowed by the appellant-Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., it would be presumed that the driver of the offending vehicle possessed a valid driving license and hence, there was no violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy on the part of the respondent no. 3, is per se illegal.
Per contra Sri Ankur Goyal, learned counsel for the claimant/respondent nos. 1 and 2 made his submissions in support of the impugned judgement and order and argued that the findings recorded in the impugned judgement and award are based upon cogent evidence and supported by relevant considerations and hence, require no interference by this Court. This appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties present and perused the impugned judgement and award, we find that once the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner and Assistant Labour Commissioner came to the conclusion that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid driving license, it ought to have given the appellant- Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. the right to recover the compensation paid by it to the claimant/respondent nos. 1 and 2 from the respondent no. 3, owner of the offending vehicle as there was clear violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy on the part of respondent no. 3, owner of the offending vehicle.
Thus, in view of the above, without disturbing the findings recorded by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner and Assistant Labour Commissioner in the impugned judgement and award, we dispose of this appeal with a direction that the appellant-Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. will have a right to recover the amount of compensation paid by it to the claimant/respondent nos. 1 and 2 from the respondent no. 3, owner of the offending vehicle.
The impugned judgement and award stands modified to the extent indicated hereinabove.
Order Date :- 22.2.2018 KS