# The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd v. Ramchandrapal Singh & Ors. 1270 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Issue for Consideration

- **Citation:** (2026) 2 ILRA 1269
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-02-03
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 130 of 2026
- **Bench:** Sandeep Jain
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/the-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-v-ramchandrapal-singh-ors-1270-indian-law-reports-54159
- **Pages:** 8

## Text

2 All. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ramchandrapal Singh & Ors.
1269

"10. Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, as aforesaid, has section 12 providing for power to
make 'interlocutory order'. Then came legislation by the Act of 1984. Parliament in the 35th year
of the Republic of India acted upon the bill bearing statement of objects and reasons saying,
inter alia, the need was, therefore, felt, in the public interest, to establish Family Courts for
speedy settlement of family disputes. By clause 2(i) in the statement of objects and reasons it was
said, the bill sought to, inter alia, provide for only one right of appeal, which shall lie to the High
Court. It was one of the objects of the bill, enacted by Parliament. Section 19 as amended stands in
the statute by the Act of 1984. To say section 12 in the Act of 1890 cannot control section 19 in the
Act of 1984 would lead to presumption that the Legislature attached different meanings for word
'interlocutory' as appearing in the Act of 1890, the Code of 1908 and the Act of 1984."

(emphasis supplied)

6. In light of above views, we need to consider section 26 and sub-section (2) in section 28,
relied upon by appellant. We do not find sub-section (2) in section 28 to be contrary to the position
of law created by enactment of Family Courts Act, 1984, subsequent also to Hindu Marriage Act,
1955. We have laid emphasis on above reproduction of the provision to demonstrate that an order
or direction made under section 26 can be appealable if they are not interim orders. Such is also the
mandate of section 19 in Family Courts Act, 1984.

7. Section 26 in the Act of 1955 empowers the Court, while dealing with any proceeding under
the Act, to from time to time pass such interim orders and make such provisions in the decree as it
may deem just and proper with respect to, inter alia, custody of children. Impugned judgment/order
is but an interim order/direction. It is not a provision made in the decree because such decree is yet
to come on adjudication of the matrimonial dispute, still pending. Where the Court passes a
judgment and there is a decree, for example, directing dissolution of the marriage and also
providing directions for custody, a party to the proceeding can choose to appeal only against the
directions for custody by virtue of section 26 and section 28(2). Such appeal would be maintainable
under section 19 in Family Courts Act, 1984.

8. Impugned judgment/order being interlocutory in nature, the appeal is not maintainable. It is
accordingly dismissed.
----------
(2026) 2 ILRA 1269
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.02.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 130 of 2026

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. ...Appellant
Versus
Ramchandrapal Singh & Ors. ...Respondents
1270 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Issue for Consideration
(i) Whether the Insurance Company could avoid liability to indemnify compensation on the ground that the
vehicle had allegedly been sold prior to the accident and there was no relationship of employer and employee
between the deceased and the transferee;
(ii) Whether, on the facts of the case, the appeal disclosed any ground for interference with the award passed
by the Commissioner.

Headnotes
Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 - Liability - Registered owner - Transfer of vehicle -
Effect:

Held: Where the material on record, including the registration certificate, showed that the vehicle continued
in the name of the original owner on the date of accident, and no documentary evidence was produced to
establish transfer of ownership in favour of the alleged transferee prior to the accident, the plea of transfer
was liable to be rejected. [Paras 6-8, 10]

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Ownership - Registered owner - Liability towards claimants:

Held: Where the registered owner continued to be recorded as owner in the registration certificate on the
date of accident, such status could not be displaced by an unproved plea of prior sale, and liability arising out
of the accident could not be avoided on that basis. [Paras 4-5, 7]

Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 - Employer-employee relationship - Admission - Proof:

Held: Where the alleged transferee admitted in his written statement that the deceased was employed as
driver of the vehicle and died during the course of employment, the relationship of employer and employee
stands established, and such admission is sufficient to fasten liability. [Para 9]

Insurance Law - IMT-29 - Coverage of employees - Scope and effect:

Held: Coverage under IMT-29 extends to employees of the insured travelling or driving the vehicle, and
where premium is charged for more than one employee, it includes the driver of the vehicle; mere nonmentioning of the driver in the policy does not absolve the insurer of liability when premium has been paid
covering employees. [Paras 14-15]

Insurance - Liability - Private vehicle - Coverage of driver:

Held: Mere absence of specific mention of the driver in the insurance policy does not absolve the insurer of
liability where premium has been charged covering employees of the insured. [Para 14]

Insurance - IRDAI Circular dated 18.10.2023 - Effect:

Held: The circular issued by IRDAI providing for compulsory coverage of employees under IMT-29 was taken
into consideration while examining the scope of coverage under the policy. [Para 13]

Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 - Appeal - Interference - Scope:

Held: Where no other issue was pressed and the findings of the Commissioner regarding ownership,
employment and insurance coverage were based on material on record, and no illegality was found in the
award, the appeal was liable to be dismissed at the admission stage. [Paras 16-17]

Appeal dismissed. (E-14)
2 All. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ramchandrapal Singh & Ors.
1271
Case Law Cited
Pushpa @ Leela & others v. Shakuntala and others, (2011) 2 SCC 240 - relied on; Brij Bihari
Gupta v. Manmet and others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1650 - relied on; Naveen Kumar v. Vijay
Kumar and others, (2018) 3 SCC 1 - referred to; United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. R. Krishnan
and another, CMA No. 2307 of 2018 - referred to.

List of Acts / Statutes
Employees' Compensation Act, 1923; Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

List of Keywords
Employees' compensation; Registered owner; Transfer of vehicle; Employer-employee relationship; Driver
coverage; Insurance liability; Appeal.

Case Arising From
Judgment and award dated 03.11.2025 passed by the Employee Compensation Commissioner/Deputy Labour
Commissioner, Moradabad in E.C.A. Case No.111 of 2015 (Ramchandrapal Singh and others vs. Nirdosh Kumar
and others).

Appearance for Parties
For Appellant: Sri Akhilesh Sharan Srivastava
For Respondent:

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sandeep Jain, J.)

1. The instant appeal under Section 30 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 has been
filed by the insurer of the offending Qualis Car No.UA-07-C-6274 against the impugned judgment
and award dated 03.11.2025 passed by the Employee Compensation Commissioner/Deputy Labour
Commissioner, Moradabad in E.C.A. Case No.111 of 2015 (Ramchandrapal Singh and others vs.
Nirdosh Kumar and others), whereby for the untimely death of Dharamveer, who was employed as
a driver on above vehicle, in a road accident that occurred on 26.02.2015, a compensation of
Rs.8,26,495/- along with interest @ 12% per annum has been awarded to the claimants, which has
been ordered to be indemnified by the insurer of the offending Qualis Car No.UA-07-C-6274.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that the insurance policy
of the above vehicle was taken by Rakesh but during the tenure of the policy the vehicle was sold
to Nirdosh Kumar, which was also proved from the written statement submitted by them before the
Commissioner. It was further submitted that the deceased was not an employee of Nirdosh Kumar,
but was an employee of Rakesh, but since Rakesh sold the vehicle to Nirdosh Kumar prior to the
accident, as such, there was no relationship of master and servant between the deceased and
Nirdosh Kumar, hence, no compensation could have been awarded by the Commissioner to the
claimants. It was further submitted that the insurance policy was not transferred in the name of
Nirdosh Kumar, as such, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay any compensation to the
claimants. It was further submitted that the Insurance Company has not taken any premium for
insuring the driver of the above vehicle, which was proved from the insurance policy submitted
before the Commissioner but still the Commissioner has held that the appellant was liable to
indemnify the compensation payable to the claimants. With these submissions, it was prayed that
the appeal involves substantial questions of law regarding the liability of the Insurance Company to
1272 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
indemnify the compensation in the absence of master and servant relationship between the
deceased and the appellant, as such, it be admitted for hearing.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company and perused the
impugned judgment and documents submitted with the appeal.

4. The Apex Court in the case of Pushpa @ Leela & others Vs. Shakuntala and others (2011)
2 SCC 240, has held that when transfer of ownership of vehicle was made prior to accident, but
neither transferor nor transferee took any steps to change the name of owner in registration
certificate, hence in view of the said omission transferor must be deemed to continue as the owner
of the vehicle for the purposes of the Act, even though under the civil law he ceased to be its owner
after its sale. It was held that the transferor was liable to pay compensation.

5. The Apex Court in the case of Brij Bihari Gupta vs Manmet and others 2025 SCC OnLine
SC 1650 while considering the liability of registered owner and insurer in the case of transfer of
ownership of offending vehicle, held as under:-

"10. There is considerable reliance placed by the insurer on the fact that the appellant
had received the vehicle from the Magistrate's Court, asserting his ownership. The order directing
handing over the vehicle to the appellant is produced as Annexure-R/4, in IA No. 190313/2022,
where it is indicated that even at that point the registered owner's name was not changed. The
registered owner was present before the Magistrate as we see from the order and while ordering
handing over of the vehicle, the applicant/appellant was directed to change the ownership within
30 days. Hence obviously the balance consideration of Rs. 10,000/- had not been paid till that date.
The transfer of the registration as per Section 50 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 requires the
transferee to report the fact of transfer in the prescribed form to the Registering Authority within
whose jurisdiction the transfer is affected within 14 days of the transfer. There is no contention
raised by the registered owner that he made such a report as required under Section 50(1)(a)(i)
of the Act. Hence the ownership was with the registered owner even at the time of the accident
and it is his liability to compensate the victims in the accident, which also has to be indemnified
by the insurer. We also notice that in Naveen Kumar[Naveen Kumar vs. Vijay Kumar & Ors.
(2018) 3 SCC 1] the definition of owner in the Act of 1988 was interpreted to facilitate fulfilment
of the object of the law, which was not to burden the claimant to follow the trail of successive
transfers. The liability to pay falls squarely on the registered owner, even if there has been
successive transfers which has to be indemnified by the insurer."

(emphasis supplied)

6. From the perusal of the documents submitted with the appeal, it is evident that the Car
No.UA-07-C-6274 was insured with the appellant under a private car liability only policy from
05.12.2014 till 04.12.2015 whereas, the accident occurred on 26.02.2015. It is apparent that on the
date of the accident, the vehicle was insured with the appellant-Insurance Company. It is also
apparent that the insurance policy was obtained by Rakesh and as per RC verification report
annexed with the appeal, the ownership of the vehicle got transferred to Mrs. Jaykari Devi w/o
2 All. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ramchandrapal Singh & Ors.
1273
Ganga Ram on 06.07.2016, which belies the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the
ownership of the vehicle was transferred prior to the accident, to Nirdosh Kumar.

7. From the above facts, it is proved that on the date of the accident, Rakesh was the registered
owner of the above vehicle.

8. The owner of the offending vehicle Rakesh duly submitted his written statement before the
Commissioner in which he averred that he had previously sold the offending car to Nirdosh Kumar,
who had not got it transferred in his name. It was also averred that the car was in the possession and
control of Nirdosh Kumar, which was being driven with all the valid documents. It is apparent that
it was not proved by any documentary evidence on record that Nirdosh Kumar was ever the
registered owner of the offending car.

9. Nirdosh Kumar was also impleaded as opposite party before the Commissioner, who has
submitted his written statement in which he accepted that the deceased Dharamveer was employed
as a driver on the above vehicle, who died during the course of employment on 26.02.2015 due to
the injuries suffered in an accident. It was further averred that the deceased was a private driver,
who possessed a valid driving license for driving the car, which was valid upto 09.02.2024. He also
accepted that the registered owner of the car Rakesh Kumar, was his relative and he was only
power of attorney holder of Rakesh Kumar and the vehicle was insured with the Oriental Insurance
Company Limited from 05.12.2014 to 04.12.2015. He further averred that he had not transferred
the vehicle in his name because Rakesh was his close relative, but the transfer was in process.

10. From the written statement submitted by Rakesh Kumar and Nirdosh Kumar, it was
proved that Rakesh Kumar was the registered owner of the vehicle at the time of the accident and
the ownership of vehicle was never transferred to Nirdosh Kumar but instead, on 06.07.2016 Mrs.
Jaykari Devi became the registered owner of the vehicle, who was not required to be impleaded in
the claim petition before the Commissioner because on the date of the accident, she was not the
registered owner of the vehicle.

11. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that as per insurance policy the
Insurance Company has only charged Rs.50/- premium under IMT-29 for the employees of the
insured, which does not cover the paid driver of the car, as such, the Insurance Company was not
liable to indemnify the compensation payable to the claimants.

12. The Division Bench of the High Court of Madras in the case of United India Insurance
Co. Ltd. vs R. Krishnan and another CMA No. 2307 of 2018 decided on 23.03.2020, while
discussing the scope of coverage with respect to IMT-29, held as under:-

"20. Issue No.5 Whether the owner of the vehicle is liable to pay additional premium in
terms of IMT-29 to cover its employees?

20.1 As far as fifth issue is concerned, now we have to decide whether the owner of the
vehicle is liable to pay additional premium to cover its employees in terms of IMT-29?
1274 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

To answer this issue it is relevant to extract the IMT-29 as follows:

"IMT-29 Legal Liability to Employees of the Insured other than paid driver and/or
conductor and /or cleaner who may be travelling or driving in the employer?s car (Private cars
only/Motorized two wheelers (not for hire or reward)

"In consideration of the payment of an additional premium @ Rs.25/- per employee
insured notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the policy it is hereby understood
and agreed that the insurer will indemnify the insured against the insured?s liability at Common
Law and Statutory Liability under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 for compensation (including legal
costs of any claimant) for death of or bodily injury to any employee (other than paid drivers) of the
within named insured being carried in or upon or entering in or getting on to or alighting from or
driving the vehicle insured.

Provided that in the event of an accident whilst the vehicle insured is carrying more than
...* employees of the insured (including the driver) the insured shall repay to the insurer a rateable
proportion of the total amount payable by the insurer by the reason of this endorsement in respect
of accident in connection with such vehicle insured.

Subject otherwise to the terms, condition limitations and exception of this policy."

20.2 The IMT-29 is relating to the payment of additional premium to cover the liability to
employees of the insured other than the paid drivers/conductors/cleaners.

20.3 The terms and conditions of Section II-Liability to third parties, as stated above,
clearly excludes payment of compensation to the employees of the insured under the category of
third party liability. Section II ultimately provides that third party liabilities would be covered as
provided under Section 147 of the M.V. Act. Section 147 of the M.V. Act, clearly spells out that
premium paid by the insured would cover only the statutory liabilities as stated thereunder,
excluding the liabilities to the employees of the insured. Therefore, under Section 147 of M.V. Act,
it is mandatory for the insured to enter into a private contract with the insurer by way of payment
of additional premium to cover its employees.

20.4 The premium paid under basic third party liability does not cover the employees of
the insured. As we stated earlier, additional premium paid under IMT-16 to cover unnamed
passengers also excludes employees of the insured from any coverage. Therefore, in order to cover
the employees of the insured, the insured is required to pay additional premium in terms of IMT-29.

20.5 This Court vide orders dated 05.09.2019 and 23.09.2019 directed the IRDA to
answer the following queries:

" (i) Whether the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the occupant in a
private car without paying additional premium under IMT-29?
2 All. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ramchandrapal Singh & Ors.
1275

(ii) What is the scope of IMT-29 after the issuance of circular dated 3 December 2009, by
IRDA.??

20.6 In compliance with the direction of this Court, Mr.M.B.Raghavan, learned counsel
appearing for IRDA filed a memo, dated 30.01.2013 along with enclosures.

20.6.1 As far as first query is concerned, the IRDA submits that the Insurance Company
will not be liable to pay compensation in an accident for the occupants in the private car, who are
employees of the insured/owner travelling without obtaining coverage under IMT-29.

20.6.2 As far as second query is concerned, the IRDA answered that the circular, dated
03.12.2009 was not intended to modify the policy terms or include coverage for employee/occupant
but only to deal with dispute being raised by the insurer for all occupants (other than
employees/occupants) contrary to the express wording of the policy.

20.7 Thus, from the memo filed by IRDA dated 30.09.2019, it is clear that insurer will not
have liability for occupants in a private car, who are employees of the insured/owner (except the
paid driver) without obtaining coverage under IMT-29.

20.8 Therefore, if an employer intends to cover its employees, it is mandatory for the
employer to pay additional premium in terms of IMT-29. In the event of non payment of any
additional premium, in terms of IMT-29, insurance coverage will not be extended to its
employees..."

13. However, upon the direction of the High Court of Madras in the case of United India
Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Ilakkiyamathi & others CMA No. 2166 of 2019 & CMP No. 8871 of 2019
decided on 24.02.2023, the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI)
vide
Circular/Notification
dated
18th
October
2023
bearing
Ref.
No.
IRDAI/NL/CIR/MOTOR/178/10/2023-24, issued the following directions:-

i) All General Insurers carrying on motor insurance business shall provide the cover to
the employees travelling in employer?s vehicle (including paid driver, if applicable) under IMT-29
of the Indian Motor Tariff, compulsorily as an inbuilt coverage while issuing private car policy for
such vehicles.

(ii) The compulsory cover of IMT-29 shall be provided as an inbuilt coverage under the
Compulsory Motor Third Party Liability Section of Private Car Package/ Bundled Policies and
under standalone policies insuring Compulsory Motor Third Party Liability.

(iii) No additional premium shall be charged until further directions.

14. It is true that the policy discloses that the Insurance Company has taken Rs.50/- premium
under IMT-29 but it does not disclose the number of employees regarding which the premium was
charged. It is further evident that since the deceased was also working as an employee, being the
driver of the car at the time of the accident, as such, mere specific non-mentioning of the driver in
1276 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the insurance policy does not entitle the Insurance Company to avoid its contractual liability under
the Act. It is further evident that the offending car was a private vehicle which only requires a
driver to drive it. It is not a commercial vehicle or a truck in which a Conductor or Khalasi is
employed, besides the driver. It is further evident that under IMT-29 only a premium of Rs.25/- per
employee is charged but in the instant case, the insurance company has charged premium of two
persons, which proves that the driver was also covered under the instant insurance policy, which is
also corroborated from the above mentioned circular of the IRDAI.

15. The Insurance Company has examined its Investigator Firoz Khan and Pawan Saxena as
DW-1 and DW-2 in order to prove that the deceased was not covered under the terms and
conditions of the insurance policy but it is evident that under IMT-29, the Insurance Company took
premium of two employees regarding the private car, in which only a driver is employed to drive
the vehicle. It is also apparent that the car was not registered in the name of Company, so as to
enable the Company to carry its employees in the car. In view of the above premium charged by the
Insurance Company, which was towards two employees of the insured, which also included paid
driver of the car, hence the contention of the learned counsel of the appellant, contrary to it, is
liable to be rejected.

16. No other issue was pressed by the learned counsel for the appellant.

17. In view of the aforesaid facts, the instant appeal does not raise any substantial questions of
law and there is no illegality in the impugned judgment and award dated 03.11.2025 passed by the
Commissioner concerned, as such, this appeal has got no merit and is liable to be dismissed at the
admission stage.

18. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed at the admission stage.

19. It is apparent that the Insurance Company has deposited the amount of compensation along
with interest awarded by the Commissioner amounting to Rs.17,94,718/- on 02.01.2016. The
Commissioner is directed to disburse the above amount to the claimants, in accordance with the
impugned judgment.
----------
(2026) 2 ILRA 1276
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.02.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 291 of 2015

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. ...Appellant
Versus
Smt. Savita Tiwari & Ors. ...Respondents