Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited., vs Saiod Ali And 3 Ors .

GAHC010196792022



2026:GAU-AS:12739
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

MFA/93/2022

1. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company
Limited,
Having Its Registered Office at Iffco
Sadan, C1, District Centre, Saket, New
Delhi 110017
…..Appellant
-Versus-

1. Saiod Ali
S/O Late Jobbar Ali,
Resident of Village Bogulmari,
Islam Nagar, PS A.M. Co. Road, PS and
District Dhubri, Assam 783323

2. Nur Mohamad
S/O Late Jobbar Ali Resident of Village
Bogulmari Islam Nagar PS A.M. Co. Road, PS
and District Dhubri, Assam 783323

3. Jeshmina Sultana
D/O Late Jobbar Ali Resident of Village
Bogulmari Islam Nagar PS A.M. Co. Road, PS
and District Dhubri, Assam 783323

4. Tajkura
W/O Sanaul Resident of Bamangram PS
Kalichak
District Makla West Bengal India 732206

……Respondents
MFA/93/2022
Page 1

For Appellant Mr. T. Kalita, Advocate
:
For Respondents Mr. M. Dutta, Sr. Advocate
:
Mr. M. Rahman, Advocate

Date of Hearing 27.07.2026
:
02.09.2026
Date of Judgment :

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
JUDGMENT AND ORDER

1. Heard Mr. T. Kalita, the learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard
Mr. M. Dutta, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. M. Rahman,
the learned counsel for the respondents.
2. This Appeal under Section 30 of the Employees' Compensation Act,
1923 has been preferred by the appellant, namely, IFFCO Tokio
General Insurance Company Limited, impugning the judgment and
award dated 26.07.2022, passed by the learned Commissioner,
Employee’s Compensation, Dhubri in E.C. Case No. 28/2013.
3. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant appeal, in brief, are
that, the present respondent/claimant, have filed a claim petition
before the Commissioner, Employees' Compensation, Dhubri under the
provision of Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, seeking
compensation on account of death of one Saddam Hussain in an
accident, which arose out of and during the course of his employment.
4. It is stated in the claim petition that late Saddam Hussain was
employed as a handyman/cleaner (Khalasi) by the owner of truck
bearing Registration No. WB-23-8470. It is further stated in the claim
petition that on 28.01.2013 at about 9.00 am, while the said vehicle
MFA/93/2022
Page 2

was proceeding from Bharampur to Krishnanagar, it met with an
accident, when it reached at Panighata under Kaliganj Police Station.
The accident occurred when the said truck hit the Panighata bridge
and front side of the vehicle fell down from the bridge. As a result of
the said accident, said Saddam Hussein sustained grievous injuries on
his person. Later on, he succumbed to his injuries. In this regard, a
police case, i.e., Kaliganj P. S. No. 66/2013 was also registered under
Section 279/304 of the Indian Penal Code.
5. In the claim petition, it was stated by the claimant that the offending
vehicle was insured with the present appellant under Manual Policy No.
ITGI2312013 dated 23.01.2023, which had the insurance coverage of
the offending vehicle from 23.01.2013 to 22.01.2014. The aforesaid
claim case was registered as E.C. Case No. 28/2013 before the
Commissioner, Employees' Compensation, Dhubri.
6. The present appellant as well as the owner of the offending vehicle
contested the case by filing separate written statements. The owner of
the offending vehicle took the plea that the offending vehicle was
insured under the present appellant on the date of the accident and
therefore, it is the Insurance Company, which is liable to indemnify any
loss suffered by the insured on account of the accident. Whereas, the
insurance company/appellant denied its liability to pay compensation
to the claimant on the grounds that the accident occurred outside the
policy coverage period.
7. On the basis of the pleadings of both the parties, the learned
Commissioner, Employees' Compensation Dhubri framed the following
issues:
i. Is there any cause of action to entertain the claim ?
MFA/93/2022
Page 3

ii. Whether the deceased. Saddam Hussain was an employee and
died during the course of his employment under the owner of
the vehicle No.WB.23.8470 which met with an incident/accident?

iii. Whether the involved vehicle was duly insured with the
IFCO.TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. at the time of
occurrence ?

iv. Whether the O.P.(s) are liable to pay compensation as prayed
for?

v. If yes, what reliefs are entitled to ?

8. At the time of admission of this appeal, a Coordinate Bench of this
Court had formulated the following substantial question of law on
09.11.2022 in this appeal: -
“Whether the learned Commissioner for Employees'
Compensation Act, 1923 has the jurisdiction to hold
the Insurance Company liable for compensation even if
there is no insurance coverage in respect of the vehicle
on the date of accident, in which the employee of the
owner of the vehicle had died.”

9. In the E.C. Case No. 28/2013 before the Commissioner, Employees'
Compensation, Dhubri, the claimant's side adduced the evidence of
two witnesses in support of their claim and exhibited some documents.
Whereas, the present appellant also adduced evidence of one witness
and also exhibited some documents. However, by the judgment and
award, which has been impugned by the present appellant in this
appeal, the Commissioner, Employees' Compensation, Dhubri had
awarded the claimants a compensation amount of Rs. 9,57,185.00/-
along with an interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of
MFA/93/2022
Page 4

filing of the claim petition. The present appellant was directed to pay
the awarded amount to the claimants.
10. Mr. T. Kalita, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that
the appeal of the present appellant is not directed against the
claimants/respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 neither they have anything to say
regarding the quantum of compensation awarded. However, he
submits that the present appellant denies its liability to pay the
awarded compensation. He submits that the main ground in this
appeal is that the learned Commissioner, Employees' Compensation,
Dhubri erred in directing the present appellant to pay the
compensation ignoring the evidence adduced by the sole witness for
the Insurance Company. More specifically, the Exhibit-B, which is the
Insurance Policy issued by the present appellant in respect of the
offending vehicle.
11. He submits that the Exhibit-B clearly indicates that the date of effect of
the policy issued by the present appellant was from 30.01.2013 to
29.01.2014. He submits that the witness for the insurance company
namely the DW-1, Shri Bhaskar Mitra, who was an official witness has
categorically stated in Paragraph No. 4 of his evidence-on-affidavit that
the cover note submitted by the claimant bearing policy No.
ITG123012013 against vehicle bearing Registration No. WB-23-8470
was never issued by the company against the vehicle involved in the
said accident. He also submits that in the claim petition, in paragraph
No. 7, the claimant had mentioned that the policy indicated the period
of insurance from 31.01.2013 to midnight of 29.01.2014, however, he
fairly submits that same was later on allowed to be deleted by order
dated 12.11.2018 of the learned Commissioner, Employees'
MFA/93/2022
Page 5

Compensation, Dhubri. He further submits that in the notices issued in
E.C. Case No. 28/2013, the period of insurance coverage of the
offending vehicle was indicated from 30.01.2013 to 29.01.2014.
12. He submits that the testimony of the DW-1 could not be controverted
by the claimants’ side during his cross examination. He further submits
that the policy on the basis of which, the insurance coverage period
was taken to be from 23.01.2013 to 22.01.2014 was never exhibited
as documentary evidence before the Court. It was only annexed as
Annexure-1. However, as same has not been exhibited as documentary
evidence, the Commissioner Employees' Compensation Dhubri could
not have treated the same to be a documentary evidence.
13. He further submits that the policy documents are normally issued to
the insurer, which in this case was the owner of the offending vehicle.
However, the owner of the offending vehicle did not produce any
insurance policy before the Court neither He adduced any evidence to
bring on record the insurance policy, which claims the date of coverage
from 23.01.2013 to 22.01.2014. He submits that Exhibit-B clearly
shows that the period of coverage of insurance in respect of offending
truck was from 30.01.2013 to 29.01.2014, whereas, the accident
occurred in this case on 28.01.2013. As such, he submits that the
offending truck was not covered under any insurance policy on the
date of accident.
14. He further submits that this fact was not taken into consideration by
the learned Commissioner Employees' Compensation and as such, he
acted beyond jurisdiction by directing the present appellant to pay the
compensation amount for an accident which was not covered under
the insurance policy. As such, he submits that the substantial question
MFA/93/2022
Page 6

of law formulated by this Court should be decided in negative in this
case. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the
appellant has cited a ruling of the Apex Court in the case of “National
Insurance Co. Ltd Vs Smt. Sobina Iakai & Ors” (2007) 7 SCC
reported in
785 .
15. On the other hand, Mr. M. Dutta, the learned senior counsel for the
claimant/respondent has submitted that the Commissioner, Employees'
Compensation, Dhubri has rightly directed the present appellant to pay
the awarded amount after considering the materials available on
record and after going through the evidence of both the parties.
16. He submits that though the owner of the offending vehicle did not
adduce any evidence in the E.C. Case No. 28/2013, before the
Commissioner, Employees' Compensation, Dhubri, however, in the
written statement filed by him in the instant case, he has categorically
stated in the Paragraph No. 4 therein that the offending vehicle had
insurance coverage on the date of accident under Manual Policy No.
ITG 12312013 dated 23.01.2013 and it was valid from 23.01.2013 to
22.01.2014. He submits that it was also pleaded by the owner of the
offending vehicle in his written statement that liability, if any, which
arises from the accident shall have to be borne by the Insurance
Company because of the insurance coverage of the offending vehicle
On the date of the accident.
17. He further submits that the Manual Insurance Policy, which was
annexed as Annexure-1 along with the evidence on affidavit of PW-1
clearly indicates that the period of insurance coverage of the offending
vehicle was from 23.01.2013 to 22.01.2014. He further submits that
MFA/93/2022
Page 7

the said document also indicates that a premium amount of
Rs.17,520/- was collected in cash on 23.01.2013 itself.
18. He further submits that though in its written statement filed before
Commissioner, Employees' Compensation, Dhubri, the Insurance
Company/appellant had taken the plea that it had issued policy in
respect of the offending vehicle on 30.01.2013, however, there is no
denial in the written statement that no manual policy was issued as
asserted by the claimant in his claim petition. He further submits that
the averment made in last two line of Paragraph No. 7 of the claim
petition was allowed to be deleted by the Commissioner, Employees'
Compensation, Dhubri, by his order dated 12.11.2018 and, therefore,
the same may not be taken into consideration.
19. He also submits that the Tribunal was also right in not relying on the
testimony of DW-1 in as much as during his cross examination the DW-
1 could not said anything about as to when and who had submitted
the written statement or who signed it or when the policy was issued.
20. The learned senior counsel for the claimant/respondent further
submits that in the Form 54 also the policy number indicated in
Annexure-1 has been reflected, which lends credence to the fact that
the Manual Policy was issued in respect of the offending vehicle on
23.01.2013 for period of insurance from 23.01.2013 to 22.01.2014. He,
therefore, submits that the substantial question of law formulated in
this appeal may be decided in favor of the claimant/respondent and
this appeal may be dismissed. The learned senior counsel for the
claimant/respondent in support of his submission, he has cited the
judgment in the case of “ Harihar Prasad Singh and Ors. Vs. Balmiki ”
reported in (1975) 1 SCC 212.
MFA/93/2022
Page 8

21. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for

both sides and have gone through the materials available on record. I
have also gone through the rulings cited by learned counsel for both
sides in support of their respective submissions.
22. On perusal of the substantial question of law formulated by a
Coordinate Bench of this Court on 09.11.2022 in the instant appeal, it
appears that it was formulated on the premise that there was no
insurance coverage in respect of the vehicle involved in the accident on
the date of accident. However, while deciding Issue No. 3, the learned
Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation, Dhubri has arrived at a
finding that the offending vehicle was in fact covered under the
insurance coverage of the appellant Insurance Company on the basis
of the Manual Policy No. ITGI2312013, which was valid from
23.01.2013 to 22.01.2014. As such, unless it is held that the finding
arrived at by the learned Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation
against Issue No. 3, formulated by it, was incorrect, there may not be
any basis for formulating the substantial question of law in the form
and manner as done in this appeal.
23. Hence, the question to be decided in this appeal is mainly as to
whether the learned Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation, Dhubri
committed perversity while arriving at the finding that the offending
vehicle was covered under insurance coverage on the date of alleged
accident while considering the Issue No. 3.
24. On perusal of the records available before this Court, it appears that
the learned Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation, Dhubri came to
the finding that on the date of alleged accident, that is on 28.01.2013,
the offending vehicle was under insurance coverage on the basis of
MFA/93/2022
Page 9

Manual Policy No. ITGI2312013, which was produced before the
Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation, Dhubri as Annexure-1, as
well as an indication with regard to such coverage in the Accident
Information Report and the seizure list also. It also appears that the
learned Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation, Dhubri also took
into consideration the pleadings in the written statement of the owner
of the offending vehicle, wherein it was categorically stated that the
offending vehicle was under insurance coverage on the date of
accident in view of the Manual Policy No. ITGI2312013, issued by the
insurance company.
25. Thus, it appears that the learned Commissioner, Employees’
Compensation, Dhubri had arrived at a finding as regards the question
of fact that as to whether the offending vehicle was under insurance
coverage of the appellant Insurance Company on the date of the
accident, and unless such finding is held to be perverse finding, this
Court, in exercise of its powers under Section 30 of the Employees’
Compensation Act, 1923, may not interfere in such finding of fact.
26. While arriving at a finding that the offending vehicle was covered
under insurance coverage on the basis of manual policy issued by the
appellant Insurance Company to the owner of the offending vehicle,
the learned Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation, Dhubri relied on
Exhibit-1, which is the Form 54, as well as seizure list of the vehicle,
which is Exhibit-7, apart from relying on Annexure-1, i.e., the Manual
Policy No. ITGI2312013 issued by the Insurance Company.
27. The learned Commissioner also took into consideration the testimony
of DW-1, wherein he deposed that he has no knowledge regarding any
criminal case registered against any agent of the Insurance Company
MFA/93/2022
Page 10

or any other person regarding issuance of any fake policy
number/insurance certificate in respect of the offending vehicle in the
name of the appellant Insurance Company. It also took into
consideration that from the cross-examination of DW-1, it appears that
the said witness does not know anything about occurrence of the
accident as well as insurance of the offending vehicle at his personal
level. Under such circumstances, the conclusion arrived at regarding
coverage of insurance of the offending vehicle on the date of the
accident on the basis of Manual Policy No. ITGI2312013, which was
valid from 23.01.2013 to 22.01.2014, may not be regarded as a
perverse finding as the said finding was based on reasonable
appreciation of materials before the learned Commissioner on record.
28. It is a well-settled proposition of law that if a finding of fact is arrived
at by ignoring or excluding relevant materials or by taking into
consideration irrelevant materials, or if the finding so outrageously
defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality incurring the
blame of being perverse, then the finding is rendered infirm in law.
However, in the instant case, since the conclusion arrived at regarding
insurance coverage of the offending vehicle on the date of accident is
arrived at on the basis of materials available on record, said finding
cannot be regarded as a perverse finding, and as such, in an appeal
under Section 30 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, the said
finding of fact may not be disturbed by this Court.
29. In view of the discussions made and reasons stated in the foregoing
paragraphs, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the
impugned judgment. The substantial question of law formulated by
MFA/93/2022
Page 11

this Court, as well as clarified in the discussions made in the foregoing
paragraphs of this judgment, is accordingly, answered.
30. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
31. Send back the records of E.C. Case No. 28/2013 to the Commissioner,
Employees’ Compensation, Dhubri along with a copy of this judgment.

JUDGE
Comparing Assistant

Amita Sharma
2026.09.03 14:39:16
+05'30'
MFA/93/2022
Page 12