JUDGMENT :

Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.

1. Heard Mr. Alok Lal, counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in all these cases.

2. Heard Mr. Ashutosh Anand, counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants in all these cases.

3. Heard Ms. Nehala Sharmin, counsel appearing on behalf of owner of the vehicle in all these cases.

4. Counsel for the appellant submits that all these appeals arise out of common accident caused by the truck bearing Registration No. BR-14H-9642 on 18.12.1999 at 7.00 am.

5. Arising out of the same accident, different claimants had instituted different cases under Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 which are as follows:-

6. The counsel submits that so far as all these Workmen Compensation Cases are concerned, they were taken up together by the learned court below and all the evidences in connection with these Workmen Compensation Cases were recorded in W.C. Case No. 02 of 2003 (corresponding appeal-M.A. No. 65 of 2005).

Arguments of the appellant

7. The counsel for the appellant submits that several persons were travelling on the truck and suddenly the driver of the truck lost his control and dashed the tree on the side of the road and turned turtle. The truck was loaded with Bauxite. Some persons were sitting inside the truck and other were sitting outside on bauxite loaded in the truck. All the persons were thrown away and sustained grievous injury. Thereafter, the injured were taken to the Hospital by another truck. All the injured persons were unconscious and one of the injured died on the spot. On the basis of fardbeyan of the informant Basant Lohara, Ghagra P.S. Case No. 95 of 1999 dated 18.12.1999 under Section 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code was registered.

8. The counsel for the appellant, while assailing the impugned order passed in all these cases submits that before the learned court below, upon being noticed, the appellant insurance company appeared and took a specific plea that the truck was not insured on the date of the accident i.e. on 18.12.1999. The truck was initially insured vide Policy No. 1131 for the period 16.10.1998 to 15.10.1999 and the said policy upon its expiry was not renewed. However, on 20.12.1999, fresh policy was taken by the insured which was effective till 19.12.2000 vide Policy No. 6659. He also submits that upon payment of premium on 20.12.1999 through cheque dated 17.12.1999, money receipt dated 20.12.1999 was issued which was ultimately collected and the insurance policy was made effective from 20.12.1999. Counsel for the appellant further submits that when a specific date has been mentioned in the policy itself, making it effective from 20.12.1999, there was no question of it being made effective from the date of cheque dated 17.12.1999. He further submits that the owner of the truck had produced his copy of the policy which contained certain cuttings in connection with the date of effectiveness of the policy, and accordingly the said document could not have been relied upon by the learned court below to hold that the policy was effective from 17.12.1999 and was accordingly effective on the date of accident, in view of the specific evidence, which was led by the insurance company who had produced a duly certified copy of the policy by the Branch Manager, Sri Suman Kullu, which is the true copy of the original policy and the signature of Sri Suman Kullu was marked as exhibit 1, though marked with objection.

9. He further submits that one interlocutory application being I.A. No. 1732 of 2009 has been filed in one of the cases being Misc. Appeal No. 62 of 2005 to bring on record, the documents t