# Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Pramod Kumar Yadav & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 2 ILRA 583
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-01-05
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 1907 of 2004
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/branch-manager-national-insurance-co-ltd-v-pramod-kumar-yadav-ors-49714
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Act, 1923-Section 3, 4(a)-challenge toaward-substantial
question
of
law-
deceased was a driver and he had a valid
driving licence-Nothing has been proved by
the Insurance Company that the driver did
not have a proper driving licence-Apex
Court has settled the insurance company
with liability even on the smallness of the
amount-In fact the substantial question of
law raised are the question of facts-the
finding of the Commissioner is not perversethe question of law framed by the
Insurance Company are answered against
it.(Para 1 to 11)

B. As per Apex Court judgment insurance
has to be paid by Insurance Company
from the date of accident-Thus, this issue
is no longer res-integra and is decided
against the appellant. (Para 4)

The appeal is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

2 All. Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pramod Kumar Yadav & Ors.
583
----------
(2023) 2 ILRA 583
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.01.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA
THAKER, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 1907 of 2004

Branch Manager, National Insurance Co.
Ltd. ...Appellant
Versus
Pramod Kumar Yadav & Ors.
 ...Opp. Party/Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri V.K. Birla

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Sajjan Kumar Yadav, Sri Kailash Singh
Yadav

A. Accident Claim-Workmen's Compensation
Act, 1923-Section 3, 4(a)-challenge toaward-substantial
question
of
law-
deceased was a driver and he had a valid
driving licence-Nothing has been proved by
the Insurance Company that the driver did
not have a proper driving licence-Apex
Court has settled the insurance company
with liability even on the smallness of the
amount-In fact the substantial question of
law raised are the question of facts-the
finding of the Commissioner is not perversethe question of law framed by the
Insurance Company are answered against
it.(Para 1 to 11)

B. As per Apex Court judgment insurance
has to be paid by Insurance Company
from the date of accident-Thus, this issue
is no longer res-integra and is decided
against the appellant. (Para 4)

The appeal is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:
1. Oriental Ins. Co. Vs Siby Geoge& ors. (2012)
4 T.A.C. 4 SC

2. New India Assr. Co. Ltd. Vs Kamla & ors..

3. North East Karnataka Road Trans. Corpn Vs
Smt. Sujatha Civil Appeal No. 7470 of 2009

4. Golla Rajanna Etc Vs Div.Mgr. & anr. (2017) 1
TAC 259

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal
Jayendra Thaker, J.)

1. By way of this appeal, the appellant
had challenged the award and after the
allegation of the advocate, despite the fact
that notice was served, no one has appeared
on behalf of the appellant.

2. As far as the respondents are
concerned, the notice has been served and
Shri Kailash Singh Yadav, learned counsel
has been instructed to appear on their behalf.

3. The present appeal involves
following substantial questions of law:

a) Whether even if any employee is
entitled for the compensation under the
Workmen Compensation Act, it is open for
the insurer to avoid that liability on the
ground that the deceased driver was not
holding driving license and there had been
any breach of policy conditions?

b) Whether the case was covered
under
Section
3
of
the
Workmen's
Compensation Act 1923, and if not, whether
the
Appellant
Company,
being
the
indemnifier only, is liable to pay any
compensation?

c) Whether the court below
could have granted interest @ 12% p.a.
that too from the date of accident?
584 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

4. So far as Question No. 'c' is
concerned, it is covered by the statutory
provisions under Section 4(a) of the Act.
The recent judgment of the Apex Court in
Oriental Insurance Company Vs. Siby
George and Others, 2012 (4) T.A.C. 4
(S.C.) held that the interest has to be paid
by the Insurance Company from the date of
accident. Therefore, the said issue is no
longer res-integra and is decided against
the appellant.

5 . As far as the substantial question
no. 'b' is concerned, the matter was covered
by the Insurance Policy. The factual data
will not permit the Court to take a different
view than that taken by the Workmen's
Compensation Commissioner. The fact that
the vehicle dashed with the truck and the
driver was in the jeep and, therefore, the
policy covered the death of the driver. Issue
no. 1 and 2 have been answered against the
appellant by giving the cogent reasons and
therefore when the deceased died due to
accidental injuries due to his employment
and the driver was having his license, thus,
the issue no. 1 and 2 having been decided
against the appellant. There are questions
of facts and therefore the vehicle being
insured, it was the liability of the Insurance
Company to indemnify the owner of the
vehicle with whom the deceased was
employed. There was a connection between
the death, employment and accident. The
accident arose out of employment is proved
by cogent evidence. Hence, the said
question is also answered against the
appellant.

6. As far as the substantial question of
law is concerned, the finding of fact is very
clear that the deceased was a driver and the
deceased had driving license which is a
valid driving license. Nothing has been
proved by the Insurance Company that the
driver did not have a proper driving license
proved from the record. The Learned Judge
has heavily relied on the decision on the
judgement of the Apex Court in New
India Assurnace Co. Ltd. Vs. Kamla and
Others and therefore has settled the
Insurance Company with liability even on
the smallness of the amount, the appeal
requires to be dismissed.

7. At the outset, it is relevant to
discuss the scope of this Court to entertain
appeal against the award of Workmen's
Compensation Commissioner. The Apex
Court in Civil Appeal No.7470 of 2009
North East Karnataka Road Transport
Corporation Vs. Smt. Sujatha decided on
2.11.2018 has held as under :

"9. At the outset, we may take
note of the fact, being a settled principle,
that the question as to whether the
employee met with an accident, whether the
accident occurred during the course of
employment, whether it arose out of an
employment, how and in what manner the
accident occurred, who was negligent in
causing the accident, whether there existed
any relationship of employee and employer,
what was the age and monthly salary of the
employee, how many are the dependents of
the deceased employee due to injuries
suffered in an accident, whether there was
any insurance coverage obtained by the
employer to cover the incident etc. are
some of the material issues which arise for
the just decision of the Commissioner in a
claim petition when an employee suffers
any bodily injury or dies during the course
of his employment and he/his LRS sue/s his
employer to claim compensation under the
Act.

10. The aforementioned questions
are essentially the questions of fact and,
2 All. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Raghav Sharan & Anr.
585
therefore, they are required to be proved
with the aid of evidence. Once, they are
proved either way, the findings recorded
thereon are regarded as findings of fact."

8. The Apex Court further went on to
hold as under :

"15. Such appeal is then heard on
the question of admission with a view to
find out as to whether it involves any
substantial question of law or not. Whether
the appeal involves a substantial question
of law or not depends upon the facts of
each case and needs an examination by the
High Court. If the substantial question of
law arises, the High Court would admit the
appeal for final hearing on merit else
would dismiss in limini with reasons that it
does not involve any substantial question/s
of law.

16. Now coming to the facts of
this case, we find that the appeal before the
High Court did not involve any substantial
question of law on the material questions
set out above. In other words, in our view,
the Commissioner decided all the material
questions arising in the case properly on
the basis of evidence adduced by the
parties
and
rightly
determined
the
compensation payable to the respondent. It
was, therefore, rightly affirmed by the High
Court on facts.

17. In this view of the matter, the
findings being concurrent findings of fact
of the two courts below are binding on this
Court. Even otherwise, we find no good
ground to call for any interference on any
of the factual findings. None of the factual
findings are found to be either perverse or
arbitrary or based on no evidence or
against
any
provision
of
law.
We
accordingly uphold these findings."

9. As far as present appeal is
concerned,
the
so
called
substantial
questions of law framed are the questions
of
facts
and
the
findings
of
the
Commissioner on the said issues are not
perverse. As far as question (d) namely of
interest is concerned, the same is answered
against the Insurance Company in view of
the decision of the Apex Court in North
East
Karnataka
Road
Transport
Corporation Case (Supra). In Golla
Rajanna
Etc.
Etc.
Vs.
Divisional
Manager and Another, 2017 (1) TAC 259
(SC) also it has been held that under
Section 30, the High Court cannot enter
into the arena of facts unless they are
proved to be perverse.

10. In view of the above, the appeal
fails and is dismissed. The so called
questions of law framed by the Insurance
Company are answered against it. In fact
the substantial questions of law raised are
the questions of fact.

11. Interim relief, if any, shall stand
vacated
forthwith.
The
amount
be
disbursed to the claimant forthwith.
----------
(2023) 2 ILRA 585
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.01.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 2682 of 2017

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.
 ...Appellant
Versus
Raghav Sharan & Anr.
 ...Claimants/Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant: