The court clarified that minor inconsistencies in naming do not invalidate insurance coverage, ensuring the appellant's right to compensation.

J U D G M E N T

The 1^st opposite party in ECC No.29 of 2016 on the file of the Employees Compensation Commissioner, Thrissur has filed this appeal aggrieved by the finding of the learned Commissioner that the 2^nd respondent herein is not bound to indemnify the appellant.

2. The 1^st respondent met with an accident while working as a cleaner in a tempo van bearing Registration No.KL-T-1969 owned by the appellant.

3. The learned Commissioner accepted the contention of the 1^st respondent that he was an employee of the appellant. For the said purpose, the document marked as Ext.A7 was relied on. The same was issued by Senior Administrative Manager of “Manjilas Rice Mill”.

4. The 2^nd respondent insurance company denied that the vehicle was insured with it at the relevant time. It was pointed out that details of the policy were not stated in the application. The company denied the liability to indemnify the appellant. Further it was contended that the appellant was not holding valid registration certificate, fitness certificate or permit for the vehicle. It was also contended that the claimant had no driving license at the time of accident.

5. Ext.A4 cover note issued by the 2^nd respondent was produced before the learned Commissioner to show that there was insurance coverage for the vehicle at the time of accident. Ext.A4 was issued on 01.11.2001 and the coverage was available upto 31.10.2002.

6. The learned Commissioner held as under in the impugned order:

“The evidence available on record is sufficient enough to discharge the initial burden cast upon the applicant to establish his case covered under issue numbers one and two above and now the burden of proof shifts to the shoulder of the insurer and they did not adduce any acceptable evidence to discharge the above burden. Therefore, issue numbers 1 and 2 are found in favour of the applicant. The first opposite party being the employer of the applicant is liable to pay him compensation, interest etc., awarded hereunder. The third opposite party/insurer contended that they did not issue any policy in favour of the first opposite party covering the vehicle involved in the accident and they filed a petition to summon the original policy from the custody of the first opposite party and a direction was given by this tribunal to the first opposite party to produce the document or to file an affidavit. In view of the direction given the first opposite party has produced a cover note alleged to have issued by the third opposite party to him and he has also filed an affidavit stating that he had insured his vehicle with the third opposite party at the time of accident. The first opposite party neither produced the original or copy of the policy as directed by this tribunal nor did he give any plausible explanation for not producing the document. A copy of the cover note is marked from the side of the applicant as exhibit A4 and it is the very same cover note produced by the 1st opposite party and it is seen issued by the third opposite party in favour of the Managing partner, Manjilas rice mill, Kottekkad, Kutoor.P.O, Thrissur for the period from 01.11.2001 to 31.10.2002. The first opposite party shown in the cause title of the claim is one Mr Saji John, Manjila Agro Food, Nellikunnu, Thrissur. The insured shown in the policy is not a party in the present case. There is no evidence available on record to indicate that the cover note was issued by the insurer to the first opposite party and there is no pleading made by the applicant in respect of the above. Further, the applicant has no case that the first opposite party is the successive purchaser of the vehicle from the person whose name is mentioned in the cover note so as to attract a deemed transfer of insuran