Oriental Insurance Company Ltd vs Payaro Devi & Ors

234
IN T
THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ
JAB AND HARYANA
ARH
AT CHANDIGA



FAO N
Date o
No. 8060 of 2014 (O&M)
of Decision: 16.09.2026

t.
Oriental In
nsurance Co. Ltd., Ambala Cantt

Versus


evi and others
...Appellant
Payaro De


...Respondents

HARKESH MANUJA
CORAM:

Present:-










: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H
Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advoca
Mr. Parit Aggarwal, Advocate
for the appellant.
ate with
e
Mr. Digvijay, Advocate for
Mr. Nitin Mittal, Advocate
for respondent Nos. 1 & 2.
Mr. Kiran Kumar, Advocate
for respondent No. 3.

SH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)
HARKES


By way of the present appea
al, challenge has been laid to
the order
dated 28.05.2014 passed by
the learned Commissioner,
Employee
’s Compensation Act, Circle A
Ambala (hereinafter referred
to as "the
e Commissioner") , whereby th
he claim petition preferred by
responden
nt Nos. 1 & 2 under the pro
ovisions of the Employee’s
Compensa
ation Act, 1923 (for short, "th
e 1923 Act") , on account of
death of o
one Shashi Pal, was allowed; co
mpensation of Rs. 5,49,875/-
alongwith
interest @12% per annum fro
om the date of filing of the
petition i.e
e. 11.10.2011 till the date of o
order, i.e. Rs. 1,75,428/- was
awarded, d
directing the appellant-Insurance
e Company to pay a total sum
DINESH KUMAR
2026.09.21 14:11
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

-2-
FAO No. 8060 of 2014 (O&M)


of Rs. 7,25,303/- (Rs.5,49,875+1,75,428=7,25,303/-) towards
compensation and interest.
[2] Briefly stating, respondent Nos. 1 and 2,
parents/dependants of deceased-Sh. Shashi Pal, filed a claim petition
under Section 4 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923. It was
averred that Sh. Shashi Pal, aged 23 years, was employed as a driver by
respondent No. 3 at a salary of Rs. 6,000/- per month plus TA/DA. It
was pleaded that on 20.09.2011, while driving truck No.HR-58-2757
during the course of his employment, Sh. Shashi Pal met with a road
accident near Dinarpur, Ambala and succumbed to his injuries on
21.09.2011. The claimants alleged that the death arose out of and
during the course of employment and sought Rs. 20 lakhs
compensation with 18% annual interest.
[3] Upon notice of the claim petition, respondent No. 3
admitted the employment of deceased-Shashi Pal, the accident and his
death while driving truck No. HR-58-2757, but stated that Shashi Pal
was earning Rs. 5,000/- per month. He further stated that he lodged the
insurance claim and requested payment of the amount to the legal heirs
of deceased, while bearing the funeral and transportation expenses.
However, respondent No. 3 denied liability and sought dismissal of the
claim petition with costs.
[4] The appellant-Insurance Company filed written statement
while pleading that the claim was not maintainable due to absence of
the requisite notice. It was alleged that petition was filed in connivance
DINESH KUMAR
2026.09.21 14:11
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

-3-
FAO No. 8060 of 2014 (O&M)


with respondent No. 3-owner of the truck. It was further denied that
any employer-employee relationship existed between respondent No. 3
and the deceased and asserted that Shashi Pal was not employed as a
driver by respondent No. 3. Dismissal of the claim petition was prayed
for.
[5] On the pleading of the parties, the following issues were
framed:-
“ 1. Whether there is relationsip of employer and
employee between the deceased Sh. Shashi Pal and
the respondent No. 1?
2. Whether the deceased Shashi Pal had died due to an
accident which has taken placed during the course of
his employment with the respondent No. 1?
3. Whether the applicants are entitled for the amount of
compensation being dependents of the deceased Sh.
Shashipal alongwith interest and penalty? If so from
whom and how much amount?
4. Relief.”

[6] On appraisal of evidence led by the parties, the learned
Commissioner, vide its order dated 28.05.2014, allowed the claim
petition and ordered as under:-
“ RELIEF
In view of my findings above, the respondent No. 2 i.e.
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Ambala Cantt is
directed to deposit Rs. 725303/- (Rs. 549875/- + Rs.
175428/-) towards amount of compensation and interest in
this court within 30 days failing which the respondent No.
2 will also liable to pay further simple interest at the rate
12% per annum on the amount of compensation only from
DINESH KUMAR
2026.09.21 14:11
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

-4-
FAO No. 8060 of 2014 (O&M)


the date of this order till its realization. No order as to
costs. ”
[7] Aggrieved against the order dated 28.05.2014 passed by
the learned Commissioner, the present appeal has been filed by the
appellant-Insurance Company.
[8] Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
deceased-Shashi Pal, at the time of death arising out of and during the
course of his employment, was not holding a valid driving licence. He
further submits that though the vehicle was got insured by its original
owner-Rajinder Singh, however, it was subsequently sold to one M/s
NR Motors, which was its owner on the date of the accident.
[8.1] In view of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for
the appellant contends that the appellant-insurance company was not
liable to indemnify respondent No. 3-Rajinder Singh in respect of the
amount of compensation.
[9] On the other hand, learned counsel(s) for the respondent(s)
submits that the order passed by the learned Commissioner is based
upon proper appreciation of the material and evidence on record and
thus, calls for no interference.
[10] Having heard learned counsel for the parties and gone
through the paper-book/record, I am unable to find substance in the
submission(s) made on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company.
[11] So far as the contention regarding the driving licence of
deceased Sh. Shashi Pal is concerned, a perusal of the record shows
that the appellant-insurance company in its written statement nowhere
DINESH KUMAR
2026.09.21 14:11
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

-5-
FAO No. 8060 of 2014 (O&M)


pleaded that deceased-Shashi Pal, who was a driver on truck No. HR-
58-2757, was not holding a valid driving licence. Even no such issue
was ever pressed for or framed before the learned Commissioner,
Employee’s Compensation Act, Circle Ambala. In such circumstances,
at this belated stage, the appellant-Insurance Company cannot be
permitted to raise any such plea thereby taking the respondents by
surprise and thus, the aforesaid contention, being devoid of merit, is
rejected.
[12] Likewise, no evidence has been brought on record by the
appellant-Insurance Company from the office of Registration
Authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act that vehicle No. HR-58-2757
which was owned by respondent No. 3-Rajinder Sngh and insured with
the appellant-Insurance Company was ever got transferred in the name
of M/s NR Motors. In the absence of any such evidence, a mere report
by an Investigator privately appointed by the appellant-Insurance
Company, who appeared as RW-1, was not sufficient to substantiate
the aforesaid plea taken by the appellant.
[13] Accordingly, the appeal is devoid of merit. No question of
law, much less any substantial question of law, arises for consideration.
The appeal is, therefore, dismissed .
[14] Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also
stand disposed of.
September 16, 2026 ( HARKESH MANUJA )
‘dk kamra’ JUDGE
Whether Speaking / Reasoned : Yes No
Whether Reportable : Yes No
DINESH KUMAR
2026.09.21 14:11
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document