Arun Kumar Goel, President—By this common order we propose to dispose these three appeals bearing No.113/2006, 114/2006 and 220/2006, as identical questions of law and fact are involved in all these cases. Facts are by and large admitted so far those relate to issuance of insurance cover in respect of its 8500 employees and after receipt of premium, the appellant-Insurance Company having sent the Policy along with list of the persons covered thereunder.

2. Before proceeding further we may observe that in a number of other cases pertaining to the policy in question appeals of the Insurance Company have been dismissed, wherein it disputed the liability of the compensation in terms of the said policy.

3. So far these three appeals are concerned, stand of the appellant is that the names of three persons namely, deceased Gajender Singh, conductor in Appeal No. 113/2006; deceased Jagat Ram, conductor in Appeal No. 114/2006 as well as deceased Kitab Singh, driver in Appeal No. 220/2006 were not included in the list of the persons insured under the policy in question which was handed over to the respondent.

4. This was the stand of the appellant in the proceedings before the District Forum below. However, this stand was negatived and complaints filed by the respondent were allowed directing the appellants to indemnify the former.

5. With a view to come to a correct conclusion both parties were directed to furnish the list of the persons who were insured under the policy in question. Mr. Bhasin handed over a photostat copy of such list in terms of the order dated 1.5.2007 passed by us in these appeals. Apparently names of the aforesaid three persons are not included in this list. This factual position could not be disputed on behalf of the respondent. However, the thrust of the submission of Mr. Verma on behalf of the respondent was very simple, which prima facie appears to be innocuous too that in all 8500 employees were covered under this policy for which premium had been charged by the appellants. As such mere omission of names of these three persons would not make any difference. Therefore, he prayed for upholding the orders passed by District Forum below in these three complaints, out of which these appeals have arisen.

6. These appeals deserve to be allowed in the face of the admitted case of the respondent in its evidence filed on the affidavit of its Managing Director, Sh. S.K. Dash. Reasonbeing what he has said in his affidavit and is relevant for determining the present appeals is extracted herein below:

“As regards correct serial number of the deceased it is submitted that the name of the deceased was not included in the list inadvertently but the same was included subsequently when the mistake was detected and due intimation of the fact was given to the respondent Company vide Communication No. HO. 4-5/Insu./NIC/96-Lab dated 20.2.1997 through Fax copy of which is being added herewith as Annexure C18…..”

7. In case initially the names were not included in the list inadvertently, but were got subsequently included when the mistake were detected and at the same time the respondent had intimated this fact to the appellant vide its communication, even then some acceptable authentic material ought to have been brought on record in that behalf by the respondent.

8. At the risk of repetition we may observe that record indicates, besides admission in the affidavit of Shri S.K. Dash, that the names of the above referred 3 persons were not included in the list. As such the onus was heavily upon the respondent to have placed acceptable as well as trustworthy material on record to establish that before the date of death of the said three persons in accidents, intimation was given to the Insurance Company for including their names. We are sorry to say, that despite numerous opportunities respondent failed to place anything on record before us which it was supposed to place on record in all the three complaints out of which t