S.M. Sharmila Vs National
Insurance Co.Ltd. & Ors.
[Civil Appeal Nos.
7170-74 of 2005]
J U D G M E N T
ANIL R. DAVE, J.
1.
As
issues involved in all these appeals are common, all the appeals are heard
together and disposed of by this common judgment as per request of the learned
counsel.
2.
The
appellant in all these appeals is an owner of a vehicle and her workmen had been
injured in an accident while they were travelling in a vehicle owned by the
appellant. As the concerned respondent workmen had suffered injuries in an accident
arising out of and in the course of their employment on 3rd April, 1998, they
had filed cases claiming compensation before the Commissioner for Workmen's
Compensation, Madurai.
3.
After
hearing the concerned parties and upon perusal of the record, the Commissioner for
Workmen's Compensation, Madurai awarded compensation to the concerned workmen
holding that the vehicle involved in the accident, which was owned by the appellant,
was insured with respondent-National Insurance Company Ltd. at the time when
the accident had taken place and, therefore, the Insurance Company was saddled
with the liability to make payment of compensation to the respondent workmen.
4.
Being
aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation
to the respondent workmen, the Insurance Company had filed CMA Nos. 559-563 of
2003 and CMP Nos.4586-4590 of 2003 in the High Court of Judicature at Madras.
5.
After
hearing the concerned parties, the High Court reversed the findings of the
Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and came to a conclusion that the vehicle
involved in the accident was not insured with National Insurance Company Ltd.
on the date of the accident and, therefore, the Insurance Company was absolved
from its liability to make payment of compensation to the respondent workmen and
the present appellant, owner of the vehicle, was saddled with the liability of
paying compensation to the respondent workmen.
6.
The
issue which has arisen in all these appeals is whether on the date of the
accident, the vehicle in question was insured with National Insurance Company
Ltd.
7.
It
is an admitted fact that the accident had taken place on 3rd April, 1998.
8.
Case
of the appellant-owner before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation was that
the vehicle in question had been insured with the respondent, Insurance Company
for a period commencing from 14th May, 1997 to 13th May, 1998 and believing the
aforestated submission to be correct, the Commissioner had directed that compensation
be paid by the Insurance Company.
9.
The
aforestated finding arrived at by the Commissioner had not been accepted by the
High Court as the High Court came to the conclusion that the vehicle in question
was insured for a period commencing from 3rd March, 1997 to 2nd March, 1998
and, therefore, the vehicle was not insured on the date when the accident had
taken place.
10.
The
learned counsel appearing for the appellant-owner of vehicle submitted that the
aforesaid finding arrived at by the High Court is not correct for the reason
that the vehicle was insured for a year commencing from 14th May, 1997 to 13th
May, 1998. He referred to the evidence which had been adduced before the
Commissioner. He drew our attention to the cover note given to the appellant by
the Development Officer of the respondent Insurance Company (Exhibit R1) showing
that the vehicle in question was insured from 14th May, 1997 to 13th May, 1998.
He submitted that as the aforestated evidence was accepted by the Commissioner,
there was no reason for the High Court to interfere with the said finding and, therefore,
the appeals filed by the appellant deserved to be accepted.
11.
On
the other hand, Mr. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Insurance
Company vehemently submitted that for the reasons recorded in the judgment, the
High Court had rightly accepted that the vehicle in question was insured for a
year commencing from 3rd March, 1997 to 2nd March, 1998. He drew our attention to
the fact that the amount of premium was paid in cash on 3rd March, 1997 and the
said fact was duly recorded in the premium register, a copy of which had been exhibited
as Exhibit R2-7. He further submitted that as per postage book of the Insurance
Company, the insurance policy had been dispatched on 25th March, 1997. He
submitted that in normal circumstances, upon receipt of cash by way of premium,
cover note is sent to the concerned person and after about a fortnight,
insurance policy is sent to the concerned person. He further drew our attention
to a copy of cover note which had been issued by the Insurance Company stating
the fact that premium was paid in cash on 3rd March, 1997.
12.
Upon
hearing the concerned counsel and upon perusal of the relevant evidence
contained in the paper book, we are of the view that the findings arrived at by
the High Court need not be disturbed.
13.
Whether
the vehicle in question was insured at the time of accident i.e. on 3rd April,
1998 is a question of fact. After appreciating the evidence, the High Court
came to the conclusion that the vehicle in question was not insured on 3rd
April, 1998 and the vehicle in question had been insured for a period commencing
from 3rd March, 1997 to 2nd March, 1998. The High Court has recorded sound reasons
for coming to the said conclusion after carefully appreciating the evidence adduced
before the Commissioner. Postage book of the Insurance Company shows that the
insurance policy was dispatched on 25th March, 1997. This clearly denotes that the
policy was taken prior to 25th March, 1997 and, therefore, the High Court rightly
believed the version of the Insurance Company. This fact rules out the possibility
of the vehicle being insured on 3rd April, 1998 as submitted on behalf of the
respondent workmen and the appellant. Moreover, the cover note relied upon by
the respondent workmen was not found to be genuine by the High Court. We are,
therefore, in agreement with the view expressed by the High Court.
14.
Looking
to the facts of the case, in our opinion, no legal issue is involved in these
appeals and there is no reason to interfere with the findings arrived at by the
High Court, which appear to be just and proper.
15.
For
the aforestated reasons, we dismiss the appeals with no order as to costs. Ad-interim
relief granted in favour of the appellant stands vacated in all appeals.
................................................J.
(AFTAB ALAM)
................................................J.
(ANIL R. DAVE)
New
Delhi
January
31 2012.
Back