FIRDAUS versus ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS.

Citation: [2017] 6 S.C.R. 462 · Decided: 14-07-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SIKRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2017] 6 S.C.R. 462 
FIRDAUS 
v. 
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 9310 of 2017) 
JULY 14,2017 
[A. K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.) 
Compensation: 
Fatal motor accident - Claim for compensation by the 
C 
relatives of the deceased - Before Workmen Compensation 
Commissioner - Pleading that the deceased was employee of 
defendant Nos. 1,2 and 4 - Plea of defendant No.I that he was the 
owner of the vehicle (which the deceased was driving) and had 
sold the same to defendant No.4 - Award of compensation -
D Challenged by defendant No.3-lnsurance Company - High Court 
remanded the matter to Compensation Commissioner to determine 
inter se relationship between defendant No.I and the deceased as 
employer and employee - On appeal, held: There is no dispute that 
defendant No. I was the owner of the vehicle and the insurance 
E 
F 
policy was in his name - No material was placed to prove that the 
vehicle stood in the name of defendant No.4 - High Court having 
not returned any finding that vehicle was transferred to defendant 
No.4, ought not to have set aside the award - However, liability of 
the insurance company is not affected even if the vehicle gets 
transferred to the name of another party in view of s. 157 of Motor 
Vehicles Act, 1988 - Compensation Commissioner rightly fastened 
the liability on the Insurance Company - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 
- s. 157. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. There is no dispute that defendant No.1 was 
G 
the owner of the vehicle who got it insured with the Insurance 
Company. The Workmen Compensation Commissioner observed 
that defendant No.1 failed to produce the Registration Certificate 
of the vehicle and since the name of defendant No.l was in the 
insurance policy as owner of the vehicle, which points out that 
the vehicle was in the name of defendant No.1 till,date. Before 
H 
462 
f 
FIRDAUS v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD, & ORS. 
463 
the High Court also, no material has been placed on the record A 
which proved that vehicle stood in the name of defendant No.4. 
The Workmen Compensation Commissioner had come to the 
conclusion that defendant No.1 still continues to be the owner of 
the vehicle and defendant No.4 has only been looking after the 
vehicle. The High Court having not returned any finding that B 
vehicle was transferred to defendant No.4, ought not to have set 
aside the award of the Workmen Compensation Commissioner. 
The reliance on the mere submission of the claimant that his son 
was an employee of defendant No.4 has no significance. The 
claimant was not the person who had knowledge of ownership Of 
the truck except what he was told by his deceased son. When the 
Registration Certificate of the vehicle was not produced by 
defendant No.1, the High Court ought to have drawn the adverse 
inference which was drawn by Workmen Compensation 
Commissioner against defendant No.1 regarding the ownership 
of the vehicle. [Para 12] [467-C-F] 
2.1 Even if it is assumed that vehicle was transferred from 
defendant No.1 to defendant No.4, there will be no consequence 
with regard to liability of the Insurance Company to pay 
compensation. Even if vehicle stand transferred to the name of 
another person, the liability of insurer to pay compensation to 
third party shall not cease. [Para 13] [467-G; 468-A-B] 
Rikhi Ram and Another v. Sukhrania (Smt) and Others 
(2003) 3 sec 97 : [2003] 1 SCR 872 - relied on. 
c 
D 
E 
2.2 Secfion 157 sub-section (1) contains the deeming 
provision that "the certificate of insurance and the policy 
F 
described in the certificate shall be deemed to have been 
transferred in favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle is 
transferred with effect from the date of this transfer." [Para 15] 
(470-D] 
2.3 Thus, in either of the eventuality, i.e. whether G 
defendant No.1 was the owner of the vehicle on the date of the 
accident, or defendant No.4 was the owner of the vehicle, the 
liability of Insurance Company continues and Workmen 
Compensation Commissioner has rightly fastened the liability on 
the Insurance Company. The remand made by the High Court to 
H 
464 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 6 S.C.R. 
A 
find out as to whether the deceased was an employee of defendant 
No.1 or not, was unnecessary. [Para 16] (471-A-B] 
B 
Case Law Reference 
[2003] 1 SCR 872 
relied on 
Para9 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 9310 
of 2017. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.12.2014 of the High 
Court of J

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.