( 1 )

907 fa 2217.12

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

907 FIRST APPEAL NO.2217 OF 2012

WITH CA/6707/2012

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.

VERSUS

JAYASHREE PRAKASH UNDRE AND ORS

...

Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Chapalgaonkar S.G.

Advocate for Respondents :Mr. A.N. Nagargoje for R/7

...

CORAM : M.G. SEWLIKAR, J.

DATE : 27.01.2021

P.C.:-

Heard Shri Chapalgaonkar learned counsel for the appellant and

Shri Nagargoje learned counsel for the respondent no.7. Respondent nos.1 to

4 and 6 have been served but they have not caused appearance in this appeal.

Therefore, appeal proceeded ex parte against them.

2.

The only question involved in this appeal is whether the

deceased-Prakash Undre was the ‘

Workman’ on the date of the accident which

occurred on 07.03.2005.

3.

Facts leading to this appeal are that the deceased-Prakash Undre

was driving tractor no.MH-25-1934 on the date of the accident. The tractor

turned turtle, owing to which, the deceased-Prakash Undre died in the

( 2 )

907 fa 2217.12

accident. Respondent nos.1 to 6 are the legal heir of the deceased-Prakash

Undre. Respondent no.5 died during the pendency of the appeal. His name

came to be deleted by order dated 30.11.2012. Respondent no.7 is alleged to

be the owner of the tractor involved in the accident.

4.

It is alleged by the respondent nos.1 to 6 that on the date of the

accident the deceased-Prakash Undre was not the owner of the tractor

involved in the accident. He had transferred the vehicle to respondent no.7

prior to the date of the accident. Learned counsel Shri Chapalgaonkar

submitted that respondent no.7 filed written statement contending that the

tractor was so transferred to respondent no.7.

5.

Admitted facts are that the deceased-Prakash Undre was the

owner of the tractor and he was driving tractor on the date of the accident.

It is not in dispute that the tractor was insured by the appellant-insurance

company and on the date of the accident policy was in force. The only point

in dispute is whether the deceased-Prakash Undre had transferred the tractor

involved in the accident to respondent no.7 before the date of the accident.

6.

No document is placed on record to show that any such

agreement had taken place. Shri Chapalgaonkar submitted that spot

panchanama as well as FIR show the deceased-Prakash Undre to be the owner

( 3 )

907 fa 2217.12

of the tractor involved in the accident. Shri Chapalgaonkar submitted that

respondent no.1 made an application to the appellant for claiming

compensation on the basis of the policy. In the said application, the

respondent no.1 had claimed that the deceased-Prakash Undre was the owner

of the vehicle. Shri Nagargoje does not dispute this position. Therefore, the

position that emerges is that on the date of the accident the deceased-Prakash

Undre was the owner. Therefore, owner cannot become a ‘Workman’ within

the scope of Employees’ Compensation Act. The learned Commissioner

proceeded on the footing that even if the vehicle is transferred the policy goes

with the vehicle.

7.

The question involved in this appeal is whether the deceased was

the owner on the date of the accident or he had transferred the ownership in

goods to respondent no.7. No documentary evidence is placed on record to

that effect. Rather the evidence placed on record i.e. the application made by

the respondent no.1 (Exhibit-46) in the record before the Commissioner

shows that respondent no.7 had claimed that the deceased-Prakash Undre was

the owner of the vehicle. Therefore, I find substance in the contention of Shri

Chapalgaonkar that respondent no.7 is in collusion with respondent no.1. In

this view of the matter, deceased-Prakash Undre cannot be said to be the

‘

Workman’ within the meaning of Employees Compensation Act as the

( 4 )

907 fa 2217.12

evidence on record indicates that the deceased himself was the owner of the

tractor involved in the accident. In this view of the matter, no alternati