Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 – Section 30 – Insurer Liability – Driving License – Liability of Insurer – Burden of Proof – Oral Testimony – Documentary Evidence. The High Court of Himachal Pradesh, in the present case, adjudicated an appeal filed under Section 30 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923, challenging the award passed by the Commissioner. The appeal stemmed from a claim petition filed by the widow and children of the deceased, seeking compensation for the death of Shyam Lal, who died during employment while driving a tractor owned by respondent No.1.
The appellant, New India Assurance Company Ltd., contested the liability to pay compensation, arguing that the deceased did not possess a valid driving license and that there was a breach of the insurance policy terms. However, the Commissioner ruled in favor of the respondents, holding that the appellant failed to prove the absence of a valid driving license and breached its duty by not diligently seeking evidence. The Commissioner relied on oral testimony and documentary evidence provided by the respondents.
The High Court upheld the Commissioner’s decision, emphasizing that the burden of proof rested on the insurer to establish the absence of a valid driving license. It noted that the insurer failed to produce evidence from the licensing authority to disprove the existence of the license. Moreover, the Court observed that the insurer’s line of inquiry during cross-examination aimed at portraying the deceased as an unauthorized passenger rather than a driver, which did not warrant relief. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. (Para 41, 42, and 44)
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
2024 STPL(Web) 87 HP
[2024 HHC 877]
New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Meera Devi & Others
FAO No.4246 of 2013-Decided on 27-02-2024
https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/2024-STPLWeb-87-HP.pdf
