AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.K. Patil, J.—Though this matter is posted in orders list, with the consent of learned Counsel for both the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
This appeal by the Appellant-Insurer is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 29/09/2003 passed in WCA/FC/24/2001 by the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation, Kolar, (hereinafter referred to as ''the Commissioner'' for short) to consider the following substantial questions of law:
(i) Whether the Commissioner acted perversely and illegally in making the Appellant liable to pay the compensation without, serving notice of claim on the Appellant?
(ii) Whether the Commissioner was justified in not even noticing the manipulations undertaken in his office in the order sheet by interpolating the name of the Appellant dated 3.1.2003 and on subsequent dates without his signature?
(iii) Whether the Commissioner was justified in making the Appellant liable to pay the compensation assessed without there being any proof with regard to coverage of the offending vehicle with a validly issued policy?
The Commissioner by the impugned judgment and order, has awarded the compensation of Rs. 4,33,820/-with interest at 12% per annum after 30 days from the date of accident till its deposit, on account of the death of the deceased Sri. G. Ramesh in the road traffic accident.
The claimants -1 and 2 have filed a claim petition before the Commissioner claiming compensation against, the R.C. holder of the offending vehicle mentioning the second Respondent as the name and address of the Insurance Company, if any yet to be furnished by the first Respondent'', on account of the death of the deceased Sri. G. Ramesh in the road traffic accident; that occurred on 20th March 2001 contending that, he died dining the course of employment. Thereafter, the claimants have filed an application through their counsel for impleading the Insurance Company as second Respondent. It could be seen from the records that, inspite of service of notice, Insurance Company remained exparte and inadvertently, the Commissioner has permitted the counsel for the claimants to carryout the amendment without allowing the application filed for impleading by them and accordingly, the amendment has been carried out as per red ink page No. 13 of the records. It is the specific case of the learned Counsel for the Insurer -Sri. B.C. Seetharama Rao that, the Commissioner without following the due procedure as envisaged under the Workmen''s Compensation Act, has concluded the proceedings and therefore, there were lapses on the part of the learned Counsel for Insurer as well as the claimants as they have not taken appropriate steps at appropriate stage and due to their fault, the parties cannot be deprived of their legitimate right to substantiate their respective case on merits.
We have heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant-Insurer and learned Counsel for the claimants-1 and 2.
After microscopic evaluation of the original records available on file, it could be seen from the order-sheet dated 6.5.2003 maintained by the Commissioner that, inspite of service of notice to the Insurer he remained exparte. The application filed by the claimants for impleading the insurer has not been allowed and in view of not allowing the said application filed for impleading as envisaged under the relevant provisions of the Act. and Rules, the Appellant has not represented through counsel and there is no occasion for the Insurance company to substantiate its case. Further, whether the offending vehicle involved in the accident was insured or not as on the date of the accident is to be gone into by the Commissioner after conducting trial. In view of this error committed by the Commissioner, we are of the considered view that, matter requires reconsideration. Therefore, without going further into the merits and demerits of this case and 1.0 safeguard the interest of both the parties, it would suffice for this Court to dispose of this appeal with appropriate directions to both the parties.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal filed by the Appellant-Insurer is allowed in part and the impugned judgment and order dated 29.9.2003 passed by the Commissioner in WCA/FC/24/2001 is hereby set aside.
The matter stands remitted back to the jurisdictional Commissioner for reconsideration afresh, with a direction to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the Insurer, claimants- 1 and 2 and other interested parties and as the matter is pending adjudication from several years, dispose of the same, as expeditiously as possible, within six months from the date of appearance of the Insurer and the claimants 1 and 2, personally or through their counsel.
The amount deposited by the Insurer shall be refunded to the Insurer immediately.
Office is directed to return the original records to the concerned Commissioner, immediately.
The Insurer and the claimants- 1 and 2 are directed to be present before the jurisdictional Commissioner, Kolar, personally or through their counsel on 6th April 2011 at. 3.00 p.m., without fail and to take further date of hearing.