New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs Shanta Devi and Ors. — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs Shanta Devi and Ors. — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interlocutory applications disposed of: delay of 402 days in filing the appeal condoned; appeal (FAO No. of 2026, FAOST No.42567/2026) admitted on five substantial questions of law with records called for and listing for final hearing (merits not yet decided); execution/operation of the award dated 22.10.2022 stayed during pendency of the main appeal; amount deposited in CMPMO No.579 of 2024 ordered to be transferred to the appeal proceedings.

Issue for consideration

Whether in the absence of the driving licence by the driver, the liability to pay compensation can be fastened upon the insurer? +4 more

Ratio / Principle

The application is allowed and the delay of 402 days in filing the appeal, having been sufficiently explained, is condoned.

Key takeaways

The appeal is admitted on the five substantial questions of law framed by the Court.ratio¶14
Since the awarded amount has already been deposited by the applicant/appellant, the execution/operation of the award dated 22.10.2022 shall remain stayed during pendency of the main appeal.ratio¶25
The Registry is directed to transfer the amount deposited by the applicant/appellant in CMPMO No.579 of 2024 to the proceedings of the present appeal.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Composite order of Sushil Kukreja, Judge, dated 11.05.2026: (i) applications of NIAC Ltd., the applicant/appellant (insurer), allowed — the delay of 402 days in filing the appeal against the award dated 22.10.2022 passed by the learned Commissioner, Employee’s Compensation Act, Rampur Bushahr, District Shimla, HP, in Shanta Devi & ors. Vs. Ashok Kumar & anr., was condoned as sufficiently explained; (ii) the appeal (FAO No. of 2026, FAOST No.42567/2026) was admitted on five substantial questions of law — liability of the insurer absent the driver's driving licence; liability of the insurer for death of the driver not occurring during the course of employment; power of the Commissioner to review/modify an award after its passing; correctness of taking the deceased's income as Rs.8,000/- per notification dated 31.05.2010 against the owner/employer's admitted salary of Rs.6,000/- per month; and alleged misconstruction/misinterpretation of facts and provisions of law — with records called for and listing for final hearing; (iii) execution/operation of the award stayed during pendency of the main appeal, the awarded amount already lying deposited in the Registry in CMPMO No.579 of 2024 and ordered transferred to the appeal proceedings. Respondent No.2, a minor, is represented by his natural guardian/mother, respondent No.1.

NIAC Ltd. Vs. Shanta Devi & ors.

CMP(M) No.1621 of 2025

11.05.2026 Present: Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate, for the applicant/ appellant.

Mr. Vishal Singh Thakur, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 3.

Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.4.

CMP(M) No.2410 of 2025

On the last date of hearing, respondent No.2 was

wrongly shown to be ex- parte. Though, he is minor and is being represented by his natural guardian/mother, i.e. respondent No.1.

No reply(ies) is/are intended to be filed to this application.

Heard. Having regard to the averments made in the application, which is duly supported with affidavit of Incharge CCH (Suit) of the applicant/appellant, the same is allowed and the delay of 402 days in filing the appeal, which in my considered view has sufficiently been explained, is hereby condoned.

The application stands disposed of.

FAO No. of 2026 (FAOST No.42567/2026)

Appeal be registered.

Admit on the following substantial questions of law:-

“1. Whether in the absence of the driving licence by the driver, the liability to pay compensation can be fastened upon the insurer?

2. Whether the appellant being insurer is liable to pay compensation for the death of driver when the death has not taken place during the course of the employment?

3. Whether the learned Commissioner below has power to review/modify the award after passing of the same?

4. Whether the learned Commissioner is right in taking the income of the deceased as Rs.8,000/- as per notification dated 31.05.2010, that too when the owner/ employer has admitted that he was paying Rs.6,000/- per month as salary?

5. Whether the learned Commissioner below has erred in misconstruing and misinterpreting the facts, provisions of law applicable to the present case?

Call for the records.

List for final hearing in due course.

CMP No.___ of 2026 (CMPST No.42568/26)

It be registered.

It has been mentioned in the application that the awarded amount has been deposited in the Registry of this Court in CMPMO No.579 of 2024.

Therefore, since the awarded amount has already been deposited by the applicant/appellant, the execution/ operation of award dated 22.10.2022, passed by the learned Commissioner, Employee’s Compensation Act, Rampur Bushahr, District Shimla, HP in case titled Shanta Devi & ors. Vs. Ashok Kumar & an r., shall remain stayed during pendency of the main appeal.

Alteration, modification or vacation, on motion.

Registry is directed to transfer the amount, deposited by the applicant/appellant in CMPMO No.579 of 2024 , to the proceedings of the present appeal.

The application stands disposed of.

( Sushil Kukreja ) Judge

May 11, 2026 (V.Himalvi)