Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1036 (HP)

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. v. RAM BAHADUR

2009-11-11

DEV DARSHAN SUD

body2009
JUDGMENT Dev Darshan Sud, J. (Oral):-Both these appeals are being disposed of by a common order as there are common questions of law to be determined. 2. FAO 394 of 1994 was admitted on the following two substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the award of the Commissioner under the Workmen Compensation Act against the Insurance Company on account of the death of Tote Ram and Hote Lal, who had filed claim petitions, is sustainable against the insurance company when admittedly 8 to 10 persons including Tote Ram and Hote Lal were traveling in the tractor-trolley as unauthorized passengers and traveling of passengers was not permitted? 2. Whether on a proper construction under the provisions of Annexure R1, FIR Ex. R-1 and the evidence on record, deceased was to be treated as unauthorized passenger and there being breach of the terms of policy neither under the Workmen Compensation Act or under the Motor Vehicles Act, the Insurance Company was liable for payment of the amount? 3. FAO 395 of 2004 was admitted on the same questions of law as in FAO 394 of 2004. In both these cases, it is the order of the Commissioner under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, Hamirpur which is being challenged. The point raised for determination in these appeals is the liability of the appellant herein to satisfy the award. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant- Insurance Company has taken me through the pleadings and has drawn my attention to the grounds specifically raised stating therein that the appellant is not liable on a number of grounds as pleaded and urged therein. Issue No. 2 as framed by the Commissioner is the same in both the appeals. The reasons for decision on this issue do not consider the objections raised. It merely makes a reference to the Insurance Policy and concludes that the appellant is liable. The objection raised by the appellant, both on fact and law that it is not liable to pay compensation for the reasons stated in the reply to the petition, have not been dealt with at all. This is not a satisfactory way of disposing of a petition. Granted that the law of compensation is liberal, but at the same time liability has to be fastened on principles of law and not mere conjectures. This is not a satisfactory way of disposing of a petition. Granted that the law of compensation is liberal, but at the same time liability has to be fastened on principles of law and not mere conjectures. It is also trite to observe that the Court of original trial, must deal with all the issues raised and argued before it. It is not merely sufficient to deliver a judgment on contentious issues without in any manner adverting to and deciding the points raised for consideration. Such an approach is antithetic to the very idea of statutory adjudication and also violates the principles of natural justice. I was reluctant to remand the case but considering the fact that there has been no adjudication of the contentions raised by the appellant herein, both the cases are remanded to the Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation Act, Hamirpur for decision afresh in accordance with law. He shall rehear the parties on all the issues urged and give his findings thereon. The cases shall be decided/ disposed of on the material on record and no fresh evidence shall be permitted to be led. Parties shall appear before the Commissioner on 30.11.2009. A further direction is issued that both the cases shall be disposed of not later than 31.3.2010. A direction is also issued to the Registry to ensure that the record of the cases reaches the Commissioner well before the date fixed. Both the appeals are disposed of. Pending applications shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.