High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
New India Insurance Company Limited v. Smt.Bimla & Ors - FAO-1552-2006  RD-P&H 2210 (31 March 2006)
DATE OF DECISION: April 3, 2006
New India Insurance Company Limited
Smt.Bimla and others
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL
PRESENT: Shri Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the appellant.
The order of the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation Act has been impugned by the New India Insurance Company Limited through the present appeal.
The learned Commissioner in his impugned order has found it as a fact that there was relationship of employer and employee between the parties. It has also been held that Bhim Singh, deceased died during the course of his employment.
Shri Ashwani Talwar, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has argued that the claimants had earlier filed the claim petition under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act. On that basis, it has been argued that the claim petition filed under the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act,1923 by the claimants was not maintainable, inasmuch as, the earlier petition filed by the claimants before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had been withdrawn without seeking any permission to file a fresh petition under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The learned counsel has also placed reliance upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in P.J.Narayan v. Union of India and others 2004(1) PLR 3 to contend that the interest could not have been awarded by the Commissioner.
I do not find any merit in either of the contentions.
The present claim petition had been filed by the claimants under the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act.
The filing of an earlier petition under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and withdrawal of the same by the claimants cannot be treated to be a bar to the filing of the present claim petition.
Also, from the perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court relied upon by the learned counsel, I find that the said judgment is not applicable to the present controversy at all. In P.J.Narayan's case (supra), the challenge made by the insured was with regard to the exclusion of a clause in the Insurance policy by the company that the Insurance Company would not be liable to pay the interest. The said contention of the insured was rejected by the Apex Court on the ground that the insurance was a matter of contract between the Insurance Company and the insured and it was always open to the Insurance Company to refuse to insure. There is no exclusion clause qua interest in the present case.
Therefore, I do not find any merit in the present appeal.
April 03, 2006 (Viney Mittal)
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.