Dismissed

New India Assurance Company v. Veena Devi

Himachal Pradesh HC4 May 2015FAO/302/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh disposed of an appeal by the insurer challenging a Workmen's Compensation Award. The court rejected the claimant's assertion that the deceased was 29 based on a driving license rather than the 37 years in the postmortem, but held the lower authority did not misapply law.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was disposed of; the substantial question of law was answered accordingly.

New India Assurance Company Vs Veena Devi — Insurance | Himachal Pradesh HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

¶2

FAO No.302 of 2010

¶3

Date of Decision: 04.05.2015

¶4

New India Assurance Company Ltd, …….Appellant.

¶5

Versus

¶6

Smt. Veena Devi & others. ….Respondents . Coram:

¶7

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge.

¶8

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No.

¶9

For the appellant: Mr.B.M.Chauhan, Advocate.

¶10

For the Respondents: Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. Sanjay Karol, J(oral).

¶11

In this appeal so filed by the Insurer, award

¶12

dated 13.5.2010 so passed by the authority under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 in case No. 2 of 2008, titled as Smt. Veena Devi and others Versus Smt.

¶13

Savita Jain is assailed on two grounds:-

¶14

Age of the deceased, has been erroneously taken to be 29 years.

¶15

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶16

¶17

The interest awarded is on the higher side.

¶18

The appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law:-

¶19

“Whether there was cogent and reliable evidence produced by the claimants for establishing that the age of the deceased was 29 years at the time of death. Whether the Learned Commissioner below has erred in taking the age of the deceased as 29 years in the absence of any documentary evidence produced by the petitioners/respondents No. 1 to 3 regarding the age. Whether the Ld. Commissioner below has erred in ignoring the Postmortem Report Ex.P2 which mentioned the age of the deceased as 37 years at the time of death.”

¶20

Sh. B.M.Chauhan, advocate fairly invites attention of this court to the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sabera Bibi Yakubb Bhai Shaikh and others Versus National Insurance Company Limited and others , 2014(2)SCC 298, wherein it has been held that the insurer is liable to pay interest

¶21

¶22

from the date of the accident. In view of the latest position of law, decision rendered by a Co-ordinate bench in National Insurance Company Limited versus Mubasir Ahmed and another , 2007(2) SCC 349 cannot be said to be a binding precedent. As such interest is required to be paid by the insurer.

¶23

In so far as substantial question of law is concerned, no doubt, postmortem report Ex.P2 records the age of the deceased to be 37 years. But, however none has come forward to prove that such age was so disclosed by the claimants. In fact, there is positive evidence in the shape of a Driving Licence (Ex.P3), indicating deceased Shyam Lal, predecessor-in-interest of the present claimants, to have been born on 7.5.1978. This matches with the age so disclosed by the claimants in their petition to be 29 years.

¶24

In view of the same, it cannot be held that the Authority below ignored any cogent or reliable evidence while determining the age of the deceased , as on the date of the accident. The age recorded in the

¶25

¶26

postmortem report cannot be said to be conclusive in nature having established such fact.

¶27

In view of the same, substantial question

¶28

of law is answered accordingly and petition is accordingly

¶29

disposed of.

¶30

( Sanjay Karol), Judge.

¶31