1. Invoking Section 30 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short 'the E.C. Act') the appellants/claimants have filed this appeal questioning the award dated 05/11/2009 passed by Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation-cum-Labour Court, Jagdalpur, Bastar, Chhattisgarh (for short 'the Commissioner') in Case No. B-75/2007/W.C.Act/Fatal, by which, respondent-Insurance Company has been exonerated from its liability to indemnify the amount under award, and the penalty has also not been awarded to the appellants/claimants.

2. Brief facts in nutshell necessary for adjudication of this appeal are as under:

2.1 Sardar Satpal Singh employed as a driver in the Truck (offending vehicle), owned by, Sardar Nishan Singh, lost his life during course of employment ill an accident occurred on 05/07/2005 while driving the offending vehicle No. UP-75/E/9739, leading to filing of claim application under Section 10 of the E.C. Act stating inter alia that on the date of accident, deceased-Sardar Satpal Singh was aged about 35 years, earning Rs.5,000 per month as driver. Appellants/claimants claimed compensation of Rs.4,87,650 from the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle jointly and severally.

2.2 In the written statement filed before the Commissioner by the owner, it was averred that the offending vehicle was brought to Jagdalpur on 03/07/2005 after purchase from Kanpur with no-objection certificate issued from Regional Transport Officer Kanpur. On 04/07/2005, it was registered with Regional Transport Office, Jagdalpur, new permit to ply the vehicle was also obtained, thereafter, he contacted Mr. V.P. Shukla, Development Officer, United India Insurance Company, Jagdalpur for insurance coverage. It was further pleaded that on 04/07/2005 Mr. Shukla agreed to insure the vehicle, after inspection, offending vehicle and R.C. Book and collected a Cheque No. 153499 from Union Bank of India of Rs.19,639, which was the amount of premium. He allowed him to ply the vehicle in question on road. It was further pleaded that the said Cheque was duly encashed into account of Insurance Company on 05/07/2005 at about 12.13 A.M. Since, the accident occurred in the evening of 05/07/2005 at about 7.30 P.M. and at that time, the offending vehicle was duly insured with the Insurance Company, therefore, Insurance Company is liable to make payment of compensation.

2.3 In the written statement filed by the Insurance Company before the Commissioner, it was pleaded that on 04/07/2005 at about 6.00 P.M., owner of the vehicle submitted a proposal form (Exhibit D/2) for insurance of the vehicle for covering risk from the period 06/07/2005 to 05/07/2006 to the Development Officer of United India Insurance Company Limited. In this regard, insurance policy (Exhibit D/1) was issued to the owner for covering the risk from period 06/07/2005 at 00.00.00 to midnight of 05/07/2006. Since, the accident occurred on 05/07/2005 at about 7.30 P.M., at that time, the said vehicle was not insured with the Insurance Company, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the amount under award if any.

2.4 On close scrutiny of the evidence, learned Commissioner has partly allowed the claim application filed by the claimants finding inter alia that:

(i) Appellants/claimants are entitled for total sum of Rs.3,94,120 along with 10% interest from the date of accident till the date of actual payment and not entitled for penalty.

(ii) Respondent No. 2/Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the amount under award as the vehicle was insured w.e.f. 06/07/2005, and the accident occurred on 05/07/2005.

3. Mr. Ratan Pusty, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants would submit that the Commissioner has committed legal error by exonerating the Insurance Company from its liability to indemnify the amount under impugned award. He would further submit that the Commissioner ought to have awarded penalty on compensation amount in view of Section 4-A(3)(d) of the E.C.