# Future General India Insurance Company Ltd v. Ajay Kumar Singh & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 5 ILRA 1598
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-05-23
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 217 of 2025
- **Bench:** Abdul Moin
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/future-general-india-insurance-company-ltd-v-ajay-kumar-singh-ors-54621
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Civil Law- The Employee's Compensation
Act, 1923-Sections 3 & 4A - The Central
Motor Vehicle Rule, 1989 - Rule 18--- Mere
renewal of the license would not be and cannot
be indicative of the fact that the claimant
does not suffer from the 40 % permanent
physical disability as duly certified by the
concerned Chief Medical Officer--- Insurance
Co. will be liable to meet the claim for
compensation along with interest as imposed
on the insured employer by the Workmen's
Commissioner under the Act, 1923 on the
conjoint operation of Sections 3 & 4 (A) and
sub Section 3 (A) of the Act, 1923--- Owner &
the insurance Co. jointly and severally liable
to pay the awarded amount.

Appeal dismissed. (E-15)

List of the cases referred-:
5 All. Future General India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Ajay Kumar Singh & Ors.
1599
Ved Prakash Garg Vs Premi Devi & ors.-AIR
1997 SC 3854

## Text

1598 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the issue before the Hon'ble Apex Court
was in regard to opportunity to supply
particulars as envisaged under Section
86(5), which the Apex Court allowed.

45. The present case is not for
bringing on record material particulars
which have been left while filing the
election petition, but through proposed
amendment, material facts are being
brought on record which goes to the root of
the case and cannot be allowed at this
stage.

46. Section 81 prescribes the time
limit of 45 days for presentation of an
election petition from the date of declaring
of result. The amendment has been sought
during the pendency of election petition
which cannot be granted as material facts
which need to have been pleaded in the
election petition under Section 83(1)(a)
were left and lacuna cannot be filled
subsequently.

47. In view of said fact, the
amendment application Paper No. A-34
moved by petitioner for amending the
election petition stands dismissed.

48. As the petitioner has not
disclosed the material facts in his election
petition and had tried to subsequently get
the
election
petition
amended,
the
application moved by respondent no. 1
under Order VII Rule 11(a) CPC being
Paper No. A-28 for dismissing the election
petition for non disclosure of cause of
action stands allowed.

49. As the application under Order
VII Rule 11(a) CPC has been allowed, the
election petition fails and stands dismissed
for non disclosure of cause of action.

50. Let the substance of this
decision be intimated to the Election
Commission and the Speaker of the Uttar
Pradesh Legislative Assembly. A certified
copy of this decision be sent to the Election
Commission of India forthwith.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 1598
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 23.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 217 of 2025

Future General India Insurance Company
Ltd. ...Appellant
Versus
Ajay Kumar Singh & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Tarun Kumar Misra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Vyas Narayan Shukla

Civil Law- The Employee's Compensation
Act, 1923-Sections 3 & 4A - The Central
Motor Vehicle Rule, 1989 - Rule 18--- Mere
renewal of the license would not be and cannot
be indicative of the fact that the claimant
does not suffer from the 40 % permanent
physical disability as duly certified by the
concerned Chief Medical Officer--- Insurance
Co. will be liable to meet the claim for
compensation along with interest as imposed
on the insured employer by the Workmen's
Commissioner under the Act, 1923 on the
conjoint operation of Sections 3 & 4 (A) and
sub Section 3 (A) of the Act, 1923--- Owner &
the insurance Co. jointly and severally liable
to pay the awarded amount.

Appeal dismissed. (E-15)

List of the cases referred-:
5 All. Future General India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Ajay Kumar Singh & Ors.
1599
Ved Prakash Garg Vs Premi Devi & ors.-AIR
1997 SC 3854

(Delivered by Hon'ble Abdul Moin, J.)

1. Heard Sri Tarun Kumar Mishra,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant as well as Sri V.N.Shukla,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent no. 1.

2. Under challenge is the order
dated 05.03.2025 passed by the learned
Commissioner
under
The
Employee's
Compensation
Act,
1923
(hereinafter
referred to as ?Act, 1923?) whereby the
learned Commissioner has awarded a sum
of Rs. 13,45,336/- along with interest at the
rate
of
12
%
per
annum
to
the
claimant/respondent no. 1 herein.

3. Bereft of unnecessary details, the
facts as set forth by the learned counsel for
the appellant is that an accident is said to
have occurred on 08.10.2022 whereby the
claimant who was working as a driver of a
petrol tank met with an accident. On
account of the said accident, the claimant
became 40 percent permanent physically
handicapped.
The
certificate
dated
02.01.2024 was issued by the Chief
Medical Officer, Amethi, a copy of which
is part of annexure 2 to the application for
interim relief.

4.
Upon
filing
of
a
claim
application
before
the
learned
Commissioner under the Act, 1923, the
appellant herein and the other persons put
in
appearance
before
the
learned
Commissioner. The learned Commissioner
after examining the evidence as led before
it as well as the physical handicapped
certificate as issued to the claimant/
respondent no. 1 herein as well as
examining the letter sent by the Chief
Medical Officer, Amethi dated 05.12.2024
(who had issued the aforesaid disability
certificate) which also indicated that the
claimant is having 40 percent permanent
disability, has awarded the aforesaid
amount.

5. Raising a challenge to the
aforesaid award, the instant appeal has been
filed.

6. The grounds as urged by the
learned counsel for the appellant while
raising a challenge to the aforesaid award
are (a) that the claimant was a holder of the
driving license which also included the
license for hazardous vehicle. The accident
is said to have occurred on 08.10.2022 and
subsequent thereto, the claimant has
applied for renewal of the license so far as
it pertains to driving of a hazardous vehicle
which has been renewed by the Regional
Transport Officer, Amethi for the period
from 18.01.2024 to 08.07.2025. Placing
reliance on the provisions of Rule 18 of the
Central
Motor
Vehicle
Rule,
1989
(hereinafter referred to as ?Rules, 1989?)
read with Form (2) and Form 1 (A) which
pertains to Rule 18 of the Rules, 1989, the
contention is that the form 2 categorically
provides for a self declaration as to the
physical fitness to be made which stipulates
in para (c) as to whether the person
applying for renewal of the license has lost
either a hand or foot or he suffers from any
defects or muscular power which must
have been answered in the negative by the
claimant to have the renewal done.
Likewise, Form 1 (A) provides in Clause 2
(II) (f) which is a medical certificate to be
issued by the doctor as to whether the
applicant has any defect or deformity or
loss of member which would interfere with
the efficient performance of his duties as a
1600 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
driver and obviously the same must have
been answered as in negative so as to entail
the renewal of the license of the claimant of
driving of the hazardous vehicle which
aspect of the matter has not been
considered by the learned Commissioner in
its proper perspective inasmuch as once the
renewal of the license for a hazardous
vehicle has been done consequently, it
cannot be said that the claimant has
suffered from any physical handicap which
aspect of the matter has not been
considered by the learned Commissioner
and thus the impugned award merits to be
set aside & (b) that in terms of Section 4 A
of the Act, 1923, the liability of any
compensation is of the employer but the
learned Commissioner has patently erred in
directing the insurance company i.e the
appellant to pay the aforesaid amount.

8. No other ground has been urged.

7.
On
the
other
hand,
Sri
V.K.Shukla,
learned
counsel
for
the
respondent no. 1 is unable to respond to
both the aforesaid arguments as advanced
by the learned counsel for the appellant but
nevertheless, has supported the order
impugned.

8. Heard the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the contesting
parties and perused the records.

9. From a perusal of records it
emerges that an incident is said to have
occurred on 08.10.2022 wherein the
claimant who was a driver of a hazardous
vehicle, met with an accident which has
resulted in he developing 40 % permanent
physical disability. Permanent physically
disability certificate has also been issued to
the claimant on 02.01.2024. Subsequent
thereto, the claimant had applied for
renewal of his license so far as it pertains to
driving of a hazardous vehicle which has
been
renewed
for
the
period
from
18.01.2024 to 08.07.2025.

10. Upon the claim application
being
filed
before
the
learned
Commissioner claiming compensation for
the 40 % percent physical disability as
suffered by the claimant, the insurance
company as well as the owner of the
vehicle put in appearance and contested the
claim.

11. The sheet anchor of the
argument of the learned counsel for the
appellant is that once the renewal of a
hazardous vehicle license of the claimant
has been done subsequent to the accident
i.e for the period from 18.01.2024 to
08.07.2025 and the accident itself had
occurred
on
08.10.2022
while
the
permanent physical handicapped certificate
has been issued on 02.01.2024 accordingly,
considering the provisions of Rule 18 of the
Rules, 1989 read with form 2 & form 1 (A)
which indicates that person claiming
renewal should not be suffering from any
physical disability which is also a sine qua
non to the renewal of the license of a
hazardous vehicle on part of the person
seeking renewal consequently, the renewal
of the license of a hazardous vehicle is
itself indicative of the fact that the claimant
is not suffering from any physical handicap
which aspect of the matter not been
considered by the learned tribunal.

12. The other ground as urged by
the learned counsel for the claimant is that
in terms of Section 4 A of the Act, 1923,
the liablity to pay the compensation is of
the owner of the vehicle but arbitrarily,
the insurance company has been directed to
pay the compensation.
5 All. Future General India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Ajay Kumar Singh & Ors.
1601
13. The aforesaid grounds are
found to be patently fallacious and
misconceived.

14. So far as the renewal of the
license of the hazardous vehicle which has
been done subsequent to the accident which
has occurred on 08.10.2022 and the
physical handicap certificate having been
issued on 02.01.2024 which indicates 40 %
physical disability, merely because the
renewal of the license of hazardous vehicle
has been done by the concerned Regional
Transport Office on the basis of an
application being filed obviously by the
claimant and merely because form (2)
along with form 1 (A) indicates that the
person seeking renewal has to certify that
he does not suffer from any defect of
muscular power and for the doctor
concerned to indicate that the deformity of
the person applying for renewal of the
license would not interfere with the
efficient performance of his duties the same
would not entail that the claimant is not
suffering from a physical handicap more
particularly when the physical handicap
certificate dated 02.01.2024 stands good as
of date and has also been certified to be
genuine in terms of the letter that has been
issued by the office of the Chief Medical
Officer, Amethi dated 05.12.2024 as
specifically finds placed in internal page 4
of the order passed by the learned
Commissioner. It could be that a person
aggrieved by the renewal of the license of
the claimant for a hazardous vehicle may
approach
the
concerned
authorities
contending that the license has been
renewed erroneously but mere renewal of
the license would not be and cannot be
indicative of the fact that the claimant does
not suffer from the 40 % permanent
physical disability as duly certified by the
concerned Chief Medical Officer.
15. So far as ground (b) is
concerned i.e in terms of Section 4 A of the
Act, 1923, the liability for payment of the
compensation is of the employer and not of
the insurance company, suffice it to say
that the aforesaid ground has been
considered by the Apex Court in the case of
Ved Prakash Garg Vs. Premi Devi and
Ors-AIR 1997 SC 3854 wherein the Apex
Court with respect to the provisions of the
Act, 1923 as well as the Act, 1988 has held
that insurance company will be liable to
meet the claim for compensation along
with interest as imposed on the insured
employer by the Workmen's Commissioner
under the Act, 1923 on the conjoint
operation of Sections 3 & 4 (A) and sub
Section 3 (A) of the Act, 1923.

16. For the sake of convenience,
the relevant observations of the Apex Court
in the case of Premi Devi (supra) are
reporduced below:-

"..........In
other
words
the
insurance company will be liable to meet
the claim for compensation along with
interest as imposed on the insured
employer the Workmen's Commissioner
under the Compensation Act on the
conjoint operation of Section 3 and Section
Act on the conjoint operation of Section
and Section 4A sub-additional amount of
compensation y way of penalty imposed on
the insured employer by the Workmen's
Commissioner under Section 4(3)."

17. In this regard, it would be apt to
indicate
that
before
the
learned
Commissioner, the insurance policy which
was valid from 06.05.2022 to 05.05.2023
as issued by the appellant herein had been
filed, and that the respondent no. 1 with
whom the claimant was working as a
driver,
was
duly
insured
with
the
1602 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
respondent no. 3 therein i.e the insurance
company which is the appellant. Moreover,
the learned Commissioner has held that
owner & the insurance company jointly and
severally liable to pay the awarded amount.

18. Accordingly, considering the
aforesaid finding as recorded by the learned
Commissioner along with the judgment of
the Apex Court in the case of Premi Devi
(supra), the said ground is also rejected.

19. Keeping in view the aforesaid
discussion, no case for interference in the
impugned award is made out. Accordingly,
the appeal is dismissed.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 1602
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 26.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 664 of 2017

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
 ...Appellant
Versus
Dayawati Gupta & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Subhash Chandra Gulati

Counsel for the Respondents:
Priyam
Mishra,
Anil
Kumar
Tiwari,
Sadanand

Civil Law-The Motor Vehicles Act,1988Sections 169(2) & 173 - The Evidence
Act,1872-Section
114(g)---
The
eye
witness has been produced and nothing could
be extracted from him, which may create any
doubt about veracity of his evidence and
indicate that he had not seen the accident---
Once an eye witness has been produced, who
proved the accident, merely because a person
who was in the car has not been produced
cannot be a ground for not believing the
testimony of the eye witness---The tribunal
determined the income of the deceased on
the basis of evidence produced before it.
Since no contrary evidence could be
produced or shown, no illegality or error in
the income of the deceased determined by
the tribunal--- The Claims Tribunal shall
have all the powers of a Civil Court for the
purpose of taking evidence on oath and of
enforcing the attendance of witnesses and
of compelling the discovery and production
of documents and material objects and for
such other purposes as may be prescribed-
-- Merely because the application moved
by the appellant for summoning and
providing copies of the income tax return
on the date of judgment was dismissed by
the tribunal, it cannot be said that the
power has not been exercised by the
tribunal because the Court has also to see
that process of law may not be misused to
delay or stall the proceedings---Petition
dismissed. (E-15)

List of the cases referred-:

1. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Premlata
Shukla & ors.; 2007(3) T.A.C. 11 (S.C.)

2. Mangla Ram versus Oriental Insurance Co.
Limited & ors.Law Finder Doc Id # 999611
(2018 AIR SC 1900)

3. Anita Sharma & ors.versus The New India
Assurance Co. Limited & anr.Law Finder Doc Id
# 1779856; (2021 AIR SC 302).

4. Parashuram Pal & ors.versus Ramlakhan &
anr.F.A.F.O. No.956 of 2013

5. Shriram General Insurance Co. Limited versus
Smt. Hem Lata & ors.

6. Malarvizhi & ors.versus United Insurance Co.
Limited & anr.2020 (1) T.A.C. 328 (S.C.)

7. Gopal, Krishnaji Ketkar versus Mahomed Haji
Latif & ors. AIR 1968 Supreme Court 1413

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar, J.)