The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of territorial jurisdiction and the liability of the Insurance Company under Section 147(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in cases of bodily injury sustained by an employee arising out of and in the course of his employment.

ORDER

Arun Monga, J. (Oral). -

CM NO.4795-CH of 2021 in FAO No.443 of 2021

CM. NO.4798-CH of 2021 in FAO No.444 of 2021

Vide these applications, Annexures A-l to A-3 in CM. No.4795-CII of 2021 and Annexures A-l to A-5 in CM. No.4798-CII of 2021 are sought to be placed on record by seeking exemption to file certified copies thereof.

For the reasons stated therein, applications are allowed as prayed for. Aforesaid annexures are taken on record.

CM. NO.4794-CH of 2021 in FAO No.443 of 2021

CM. NO.4797-CH of 2021 in FAO No.444 of 2021

For the reasons pleaded in the applications, the same are allowed. Delay of 5 days in filing the appeals is condoned. Disposed of accordingly.

Main appeal

1. Two appeals bearing FAO No.443 of 2021 and FAO No.444 of 2021 filed by The New India Assurance Company Limited under the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 (here-in-after called as the Act') are being disposed of vide the instant common order. Both arise from the same accident which occurred on 06.05.2019 resulting in death of two employees, leading to filing of two separate claims .

2. Impugned in the appeals are two separate orders, both dated 27.01.2021 passed by the learned Commissioner, Gurugram under Employee's Compensation Act, 1923. Vide one, claimants of deceased victim/employee Pawan Kumar, working as a driver at the relevant time, have been awarded a total compensation of Rs. 10,80,003/- and vide second order, claimants of other deceased victim Pankaj, employed as cleaner, have been awarded Rs. 10,92,680/- (amounts are inclusive of the interest component as well as other expenses including funeral etc.).

3. Facts and record is being referred from FAO no.443 of 2021. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argues that the objection of the Insurance Company with regard to the territorial jurisdiction was given a complete short shrift by the learned Commissioner while rendering the award. On a court query qua merits of case, he submits that no doubt as per the evidence adduced by the claimants (LRs of the deceased), the deceased had indeed suffered fatal injuries from the accident, which eventually led to their death. However, he argues that the said accident did not take place in course of employment.

4. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants and on perusal of the impugned award viz-a-viz the other record appended with the appeal, I do not find any grounds worthy of interference.

5. The arguments are sans any substance, both the preliminary objection as well as merits of the case for the reasons stated herein after.

6. First, qua the objection raised on territorial jurisdiction. Admittedly, proceedings were instituted in Gurugram on the basis of the Aadhar cards of the deceased issued in Gurugram. The very purpose of issuance of Aadhar cards inter alia is two fold ;

(i) to establish the identity of a citizen of the country;

(ii) to ascertain ordinary place of residence.

I see no reason as to why a genuinely issued Aadhar cards was not to be believed by the competent authority/compensation commissioner, unless of course, proved otherwise, which the insurance company did not. Basis thereof, victims were treated as residents of Gurugram and thus conferring jurisdiction on the Gurugram Commissioner to entertain the claim petitions. There is nothing wrong in adopting that said approach.

7. On a pointed query, learned counsel for the appellant(s) informs that the Insurance Company did not adduce any independent evidence to establish its objection that the deceased victims did not either belong to or reside within the territorial jurisdiction of Gurugram. In the premise, the learned Commissioner rightly over ruled the preliminary objection territorial jurisdiction. He was fully justified in proceeding with the matter having prima facie convinced himself on the basis of Aadhar cards issued to the deceased.

8. Next, the arguments on merits inter alia contending that the accident did not taken place in course of the employment are e