The insurer's attempt to contest liability on an unproven technical ground regarding policy coverage was rejected, affirming that established liability under the Employees’ Compensation Act must be honored.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.

1. In the present appeal, the appellant seeks a direction from this Court to set aside the judgment/order dated 07.10.2024 passed by the Commissioner for Employee’s Compensation-cum-/Divisional Labour Commissioner, Jagatsinghpur in E.C. Case No.16 of 2022, and to exonerate the insurer from liability, contending that the policy was not in force at the time of the accident.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(i) On 01.03.2022 at about 3:45 A.M., a bus bearing Registration No. OD-05-BB-5855, owned by respondent/O.P. No.1 and driven by Bishan Das (respondent No.1/applicant), met with a major road accident near Sonakania while proceeding from Bhubaneswar to Kolkata, resulting in serious injuries to the driver.

(ii) The impact caused multiple grievous injuries, including fractures in both legs, necessitating immediate hospitalization. The injured driver was initially taken to Midnapur Medical College & Hospital for emergency care, subsequently shifted to Rajveer Nursing Home, Bhadrak, then to SCB Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack, and finally to Padmini Care, Tangi, where he underwent orthopaedic surgery with nailing and continued in-patient treatment from 08.03.2022 to 28.03.2022, followed by re-admission from 14.04.2022 to 19.04.2022 for post-operative management.

(iii) Following discharge, the driver continued to receive long-term follow-up treatment under Professor Dr. R.N. Rout, who later assessed the extent of physical disability at 60% and the loss of earning capacity at 80%, citing persistent mobility restriction and inability to perform driving duties.

(iv) The accident was formally registered as Dantan P.S. Case No. 87/2022, and the claimant filed E.C. Case No. 16/2022 before the D.L.C.-cum-Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation, Jagatsinghpur, under the provisions of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, seeking statutory compensation for employment-related injury.

(v) At the relevant time, the applicant was employed as a driver under O.P. No.1 with a monthly wage of Rs 15,000 (admitted by the employer), and the offending bus was insured with National Insurance Co. Ltd. (O.P. No.2) under Policy No. 150305312110004167, shown as valid from 01.03.2022 to 28.02.2023.

(vi) In the proceedings, O.P. No.1 admitted the relationship of employment, occurrence of accident, and extent of injury, while O.P. No.2, the insurer, denied liability but did not produce any documentary or oral evidence to rebut the claim or establish contrary facts.

(vii)The applicant examined himself as P.W.1, filed certified police papers and treatment documents, examined the attending doctor from Padmini Care as P.W.2, and Dr. R.N. Rout as P.W.3, who confirmed the medical findings and the loss of earning capacity.

(viii) After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Commissioner held the accident to have arisen out of and in the course of employment, accepted the medical assessment of disability, and computed compensation at Rs 15,58,067/-, including Rs 8,051/- towards medical expenses, with 12% interest per annum from the date of accident, aggregating to Rs 18,55,652/-, holding the insurer liable to indemnify the employer.

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

3. Learned counsel for the Appellant earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:

(i) The appellant, National Insurance Co. Ltd. contends that the insurance policy was not in force at the time of the accident.

(ii) It assert