[217] United Indi Shri Priya W Coram : Present: PANKAJ J [1] passed by t [2] while drivi allowed th Rs.52,058 [3] the Court that S.K. K He submits accident contract of the same is IN THE HIGH COURT OF AT CHANDIGA FAO-1241 Date of De ed India Insurance Company Limited versus Priya Wart and others HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PA Mr. Satpal Dhamija, Advocat for the appellant. **** KAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) Insurance Company is in appe d by the Commissioner under the W The claim petition relates to e driving the insured vehicle. The C ed the claim application and aw 058/- along with interest @ 12% per Mr. Dhamija, counsel for the ourt to the testimony of respondent N S.K. Kaushal, the registered owner of ubmits that the vehicle was insured on ent was 20.12.1995. The inference act of insurance was entered into in th ame is not enforceable. T OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA DIGARH 1241-2000 (O&M) of Decision : 24.02.2026 ited …Appellant ….Respondents PANKAJ JAIN dvocate n appeal against order dated 11.11.199 Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 to injuries suffered by the claima Commissioner vide impugned ord d awarded the claimant a sum o % per annum. or the appellant, has drawn attention o nt No.2-Ranbir Singh, who admitte ner of the vehicle, died on 23.09.199 on 15.11.1995, whereas the date erence that can be drawn is that th the name of a dead person and thu 11.1999 1923. laimant order sum of ntion of dmitted 9.1995. date of that the and thus RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.02.25 16:02 I agree to specified portions of this document FAO-1241-2000 (O&M) -2- [4] The argument sans merit and cannot be accepted. Admittedly, the insurer, i.e. the appellant, entered into the contract of insurance, after receipt of premium. Thus, it is too late in the day for the insurer to exercise right to claim that the contract was voidable. Having accepted the premium, the Insurance Company cannot be allowed to turn around and deny its liability. [5] The other limb of argument raised by Mr. Dhamija, counsel for the appellant, in respect of the admission made by respondent No.2 that the claimant was not a regular employee, also cannot be accepted for more than one reason. The Act does not contemplate regular employment. It stands proved that the claimant suffered injuries while on wheel, i.e. in an accident arising out of and during the course of employment. [6] In view thereof, finding no merit in the present appeal, the same is order to be dismissed. [7] All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed off. (PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE 24.02.2026 ‘R. Sharma' Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.02.25 16:02 I agree to specified portions of this document