Liability of the insurance company under the Employee's Compensation Act, emphasizing the transfer of the insurance policy and the deemed transfer of the policy when the sale of the vehicle is proved.

1. This appeal has been filed against order dated 9.9.2014, passed by the Commissioner under the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923, Kaithal, vide which, the Commissioner awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 11,28,960/- in favour of the applicants and against respondent No. 2 Insurance company, holding that only respondent No. 2 - insurance company is liable to pay the compensation.

2. Insurance company is not satisfied with the order and has come up in the present appeal. In the appeal, notice was issued to all the respondents. The applicants put in appearance. However, the employer Ashish - respondent No. 3 did not appear despite notice.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the file.

4. It is necessary to reproduce brief facts of the case. According to the case of the petitioners before the lower Court, Balinder @ Bender son of Siria Ram was employed by Ashish - respondent No. 3 as a driver on Bolero jeep bearing registration No. HR-67-6140 on the month salary of Rs. 8000/-. On 9.6.2012, said Balinder along with Ishwar had gone for the work of respondent No. 3 Ashish from Kalyat towards Mataur. At about 10.00 p.m., when they reached near Indane Gas Agency Matour Road Kalayat, Balinder @ Binder stopped the vehicle on the road side and went towards Gas Agency to fetch drinking water. There he was struck by the unknown vehicle and died at the spot. Ishwar son of Bhaga witnessed the said accident. An FIR No. 81 dated 9.6.2012 under Sections 279/304A IPC was also registered.

5. Respondent No. 3 - Ashish employer in the written statement admitted the accident and also admitted that the deceased was employed by him. However, the insurance company denied its liability saying that the insurance policy was in the name of Istikar son of Nasirudin r/o. Hali Colony Babli Road Panipat and that it is not liable to pay the compensation.

6. The learned Commissioner, after recording the evidence of both the parties, came to the conclusion that the insurance policy was not in the name of respondent No. 1, rather it stood in the name of Istikar son of Nasirudin. However, the learned Commissioner took strength from the law laid down in the 2014 ACJ 1266 SC and 2014 ACJ 818 to hold that even if the insurance policy is not transferred in the accuracy and the name of the transferee owner, the insurance company is still liable to pay the compensation.

7. First and foremost question arising for consideration before this Court is as to whether the transfer of vehicle by said Istikar son of Nasirudin in favour of Ashish - respondent No. 3 is proved on file. To prove the said transfer, there is only a copy of the affidavit mark A on file which is dated 18.5.2012. The insurance policy was effective from 17.5.2012 to 16.5.2013, indicating that the affidavit is of the next day of the issuance of the policy. The accident occurred on 9.6.2012. Now, the question would arise whether mere production of photostat copy of the affidavit, without any other document of transfer, will prove that the Istikar son of Nasirudin had transferred the said Bolero Jeep in favour of Ashish - respondent No. 3. I am of the view that merely unproved photostat copy of the affidavit will not prove the said transfer. For the transfer of the vehicle, some other documents are required to be executed and then the registering authority is to be informed about the said transfer. It is not even alleged that any other document was executed. It being so, the photostat copy of the affidavit mark A cannot be read into evidence and if the same is discarded, transfer of Bolero Jeep by Istikar son of Nasirudin in favour of Ashish - respondent No. 3 is not proved. Once the transfer of the vehicle in favour of Ashish is not proved, the insurance company cannot held liable to reimburse the insured. Unluckily in this case, the registered owner Istikar son of Nasirudin is not a party. Therefore, no order can be passed against him.

8. Learne