JUDGMENT Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. 1. Both these appeals are directed against the award dated 1.4.2014 passed by learned Commissioner, Employee’s Compensation, Solan, District Solan, H.P. in WCA No. 1/2 of 2011 whereby the compensation of Rs. 7,94,212/- alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum has been awarded in favour of the claimants. 2. The claimants are aggrieved as no penalty as envisaged under Employee’s Compensation Act (for short ‘Act’) has been imposed, while the insurance company is aggrieved because the liability has been fastened upon it. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case carefully. 4. Bearing in mind the nature of order I propose to pass, it is not necessary to state in detail the relevant facts. The claimants are the legal heirs of deceased Vinod Singh and have sought compensation on account of his death. The specific defence of the Insurance Company was that deceased Vinod Singh was not possessed of a valid and effective driving licence, rather his licence was fake. The Insurance Company relied upon the verification report Ex.PW-3/A issued by the Licensing Authority, Motor Vehicles Department, Dehradun in respect of driving licence Ex. RA. But the owner thereafter produced another driving licence Ex. R-1X, which for the first time was put to RW-2 Narinder Kumar, in his cross-examination held on 31.7.2013. 5. The Insurance Company immediately thereafter filed an application for grant of permission to lead additional evidence by placing on record certain documents to show that the licence i.e. Ex. R-1X was fake. 6. The application came up for consideration on 11.11.2013 and was fixed for reply and consideration on 10.12.2013. On 10.12.2013, the Commissioner passed the following order: “At this stage, ld. counsel for the respondents made no objection in case the application under Section 151 CPC for production of additional evidence be allowed. In view of no objection made by the ld. counsel for the respondents, the petition in hand stand allowed. Subject to cost of Rs.500/-. Cost not paid. Be paid on the next date of hearing. Now to come up for cross-examination of the dealing clerk of motor vehicle authority being last date granted on self responsibility. Steps be taken within 10 days. Let the case file be put up on 12.3.2014.” 7. Subject to cost of Rs.500/-. Cost not paid. Be paid on the next date of hearing. Now to come up for cross-examination of the dealing clerk of motor vehicle authority being last date granted on self responsibility. Steps be taken within 10 days. Let the case file be put up on 12.3.2014.” 7. When the matter was fixed on 12.3.2014, learned Commissioner passed the following orders: “No RW present. One more adjournment prayed by the ld. counsel for the respondent but since it was last opportunity and petition is old one which was filed in the year 2011, hence I do not find justification to grant more opportunities for remaining respondent evidence and accordingly the remaining evidence of respondent No.2 is closed by the order of the Court. Now to come up for arguments on 14.3.2014.” On 14.3.2014, the Commissioner heard the arguments and reserved the order, which was ultimately announced on 1.4.2014. 8. Can the Courts, Tribunals and Authorities proceed rashly with the cases only because these are old and targeted ones? Is the Court rendering any favour while granting assistance to the parties by issuing process to the witnesses summoned? These are certain questions which are required to be considered in these appeals. 9. Of late, there appears to be a rising trend in the Subordinate Courts where they are totally oblivious of their duties to render not only justice but do complete justice to the parties. This is particularly so when the cases are relatively old and targeted ones. 10. Firstly, I see no reason why the Commissioner should have imposed cost while allowing the aforesaid application preferred by the Insurance Company more particularly, when the appellant/ insurance company was not at fault, because admittedly it was the claimants who for the first time had confronted RW-2 in his cross-examination with driving licence Ex.R-1X and immediately thereafter the Insurance Company had moved the application for permission to lead additional evidence. 11. Secondly, it is not understandable as to why the Court refused to render any assistance for summoning the witnesses through Court process and directed the Insurance Company to produce the witnesses from the office of District Transport Officer, Senapati District Manipur on self responsibility. It needs to be reemphasized and re-stated that the Courts do no favour to any party by summoning witnesses through its process. It needs to be reemphasized and re-stated that the Courts do no favour to any party by summoning witnesses through its process. The same is rather a right granted under the law to the parties in lis. 12. Order 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure casts an obligation on the Court to render all assistance to summoning of the witnesses. As a general rule, the parties are entitled as of right to obtain summons to witnesses, though in certain cases the time frame may be an exception. 13. The learned Commissioner below also appears to be totally oblivious of the provisions of Rule 19 of Order 16 CPC, because admittedly Manipur is more than 500 kilometers distance from the Court house. This Rule reads as under: “R.19. No witness to be ordered to attend in person unless resident within certain limits. – No one shall be ordered to attend in person to give evidence unless he resides:- (a) Within the local limits of the Court’s ordinary original jurisdiction. (b) Without such limits but at a place less than one hundred or (where there is railway or steamer communication or other established public conveyance for five-sixths of the distance between the place where he resides and the place where the Court is situate) less than five hundred kilometers distance from the Court-house: Provided that where transport by air is available between the two places mentioned in this rule and the witness is paid the fare by air, he may be ordered to attend in person. 14. It is further difficult to comprehend as to how the learned Commissioner below expected the witness to present himself without process of Court when admittedly the witness was not an employee of the Insurance Company but was a government servant, who was subject to various rules including conduct rules, leave rules etc. Would a Government servant simply come to give evidence on the asking of the Insurance Company? The learned Commissioner ought to have considered all these aspects before directing the Insurance Company to produce its evidence on self responsibility. 15. Would a Government servant simply come to give evidence on the asking of the Insurance Company? The learned Commissioner ought to have considered all these aspects before directing the Insurance Company to produce its evidence on self responsibility. 15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned award dated 1.4.2014 passed by the learned Commissioner below in case WCA No. 1/2 of 2011 cannot be sustained and is accordingly setaside and is remitted back to the Commissioner for deciding the same afresh after permitting the Insurance Company to lead additional evidence and needless to say the claimants and the other parties will not only have a right to cross-examine the witnesses but they shall also be at liberty to lead evidence though only with respect to licence Ex.R-1X. 16. Both the appeals are accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid terms. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned Commissioner on 01.06.2015. The learned Commissioner shall make all efforts to decide the case as expeditiously as possible and in no event later than 30th September, 2015. The Registry is directed to send the records forthwith, so as to reach the Court below well before the date fixed. Copy dasti.