Oriental Insurance Co Ltd vs Sri Putti Lal @ Putai Lal & Others
2018 Latest Caselaw 1686 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

AFR
 

 
Court No. - 28
 
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1860 of 2004
 
Appellant :- Oriental Insurance Co Ltd
 
Respondent :- Sri Putti Lal @ Putai Lal & Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- V.C. Dixit
 
Counsel for Respondent :- A.L.Gupta
 

 
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

1. Heard Sri V.C. Dixit, learned counsel for the appellant. None appears on behalf of the respondents.

2. This appeal under Section 30 of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1923') has arisen from order and award dated 31.05.2004 passed by Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Kanpur Region, Kanpur in W.C. Case No. 35 of 2003 (Sri Putti Lal @ Putai Lal and other Vs Sri Umakant Trivedi and other).

3. Proceedings under the Act of 1923 were instituted by the claimant-respondents against appellant-defendant no. 2. The said proceedings under the Act of 1923 were triggered by instituting a plaint.

4. The case set out in the plaint by the claimants was that one Balak Ram was the driver of the Maruti Van vehicle bearing registration No. U.P. 78/S-5199. The registered owner of the aforesaid vehicle was the respondent no. 1-defendant no. 1. The vehicle was insured by the appellant-defendant no. 2. The said Balak Ram was driving the aforesaid vehicle on 31.03.2003 when it collided with another vehicle bearing registration No. U.P. 78/T-3535 near Bhauti, situated close to Kanpur. The driver of the Maruti Van, Balak Ram, sustained fatal injuries in the accident. He died on the spot. The case of the respondent no. 1/plaintiffs was that the accident arose out of and in the course of his employment under his employer, proforma respondent no. 2-defendant no. 1. The respondent nos. 1 and 2-plaintiffs rested their claim for compensation on the aforesaid facts.

5. The defendants in the proceedings were duly noticed. The defendants including the appellant in the instant case entered their defence. The respondent no. 3-defendant no. 1 in his written statement asserted that the deceased Balak Ram was intermittently engaged as a driver on a temporary basis by the respondent no.3-defendant no. 1. On the fateful day of the accident i.e. 31.03.2003 the deceased Balak Ram was plying the vehicle from Kanpur to Orai. The Maruti Van met with an accident with Truck bearing No. U.P 78/T-3535. The accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the truck driver. In the head on collusion between the truck and the Maruti Van, the driver of the Maruti Van, Balak Ram lost his life. It was also asserted by the respondent no. 3-defendant no. 1 that the ill fated vehicle Maruti Van was duly insured by the appellants-defendant no. 2. The insurance policy was valid from 24.10.2002 to 23.10.2003. On the date of the accident, the Maruti Van was duly insured by the appellant-defendant no. 2 and the appellant-defendant no. 2 was liable to pay the compensation.

6. The appellant-defendant no. 2, the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. duly entered its defence by filing a written statement refuting the liability. The case of the appellant-defendant no. 2 was that the ill fated Maruti Van was insured as a private vehicle. The validity of the period of insurance was 24.10.2002 to 23.10. 2003. The respondent no. 3-defendant no. 2 (the owner of the vehicle) or the policy holder had breached the terms of the policy. The appellant-defendant no. 2 was not liable to pay the compensation. The appellant-defendant no. 2 in its written statement shifted the onus of liability for payment of compensation upon respondent no. 3-defendant no. 1.

7. In the course of proceedings in the court below, all parties including the appellant-defendant no. 2 were given full opportunity to tender their defence and introduce evidence. The appellant-defendant no. 2 duly cross examined the witnesses of respondent no. 3-defendant no. 1. The appellant-defendant no. 2 also adduced evidence in support of its case.

8. The learned Trial Court upon a detailed consideration of the case of the respective parties including the appellant-defendant no. 2 found that the deceased was driving the ill fated vehicle at the time of the accident. The accident happened because of the rash and negligent driving of the Truck driver. The accident in which the driver Balak Ram lost his life arose out of in and the course of his employment. The ill fated vehicle Maruti Van was validly insured by the appellant-defendant no. 2 namely Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

9. The learned Trial Court returned a specific finding on the objections taken by the appellant-defendant no. 2 after due consideration of the materials and evidences in the record. The learned Trial Court found that there was no breach of the insurance policy. Consequently, the appellant-defendant no. 2 was liable to pay the compensation.

10. At the time of the admission of the appeal the following question of law was framed by this Court;

"Whether Workmen's Compensation Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act is justified to decide claim petition without framing issue"?

11. No other question of law was canvassed by learned counsel for the appellant during the course of argument.

12. Framing of issues enables the parties to the litigation as well as the Court to define the controversy in specific terms. The issues are framed before the parties go to trial. The framing of issues alerts the parties to the claim of other side upon which the Court is being called upon to enter its judgment. It also prevents one party from springing a surprise on its rival. In case, an adversary is taken off guard or a party pulls of a surprise upon its adversary, it will have consequences on the fairness of legal process. The party which is taken by surprise by its adversary on any issue, would be precluded from effectively tendering its defence and to refute the case of its adversary on such issue. In these circumstances the procedure adopted by the Court would not be known to law and alien to the concept of fairplay. In fact it would lead to a mistrial and even miscarriage of justice.

13. However, failure to frame issues does not ipso facto invalidate the proceedings or vitiate the judgment of the Court. At times even when issues are not framed but the same are known and understood by the parties before they go to trial or even in the course of the trial. In these cases the party is already alert to the case of the opposite side in the trial. When such party has been given requisite opportunity to tender its evidence and refute the case of other side, it cannot later complain that the judgment is vitiated on account of omission to frame issues. If no prejudice is caused to a party by non framing of issues by the Court, the judgment of the Court cannot be invalidated for failure to frame issues.

14. It would now be apposite to fortify legal narrative precedings by good authority on point.

15. The consequence of an omission by a Trial Court to frame an issue engaged the attention of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nedunuri Kameswaramma Vs Sampati Subba Rao, reported at AIR 1963 Supreme Court 884. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while ruling that mere failure to frame an issue could not be fatal to the proceedings if the parties went to trial fully knowing the rival case and adduce evidence in support of their case and or in refutation of those of the other side held thus;

"On the first point, we do not see how the suit could be ordered to be dismissed, for, on the facts of the case, a remit was clearly indicated. The appellant had already pleaded that this was jeroyti land, in which a patta in favour of her predecessors existed, and had based the suit on a kadapa, which showed a sub-tenancy. It was the respondent who had pleaded that this was a Dharmila inam and not jeroyti land, and that he was in possession of the kudiwaram rights though his predecessors for over a hundred years, and had become an occupancy tenant. Though the appellant had not mentioned a Karnikam service inam, parties well understood that the two cases opposed to each other were of Dharmila Sarvadumbala inam as against a Karnikam service inam. The evidence which has been led in the case clearly showed that the respondent attempted to prove that this was a Dharmila inam and to refute that this was a Karnikam service inam. No doubt, no issue was framed, and the one, which was framed, could have been more elaborate; but since the parties went to trial fully knowing the rival case and led all the evidence not only in support of their contentions but in refutation of those of the other side, it cannot be said that the absence of an issue was fatal to the case, or that there was that mis-trial which vitiates proceedings.

We are, therefore, of opinion that the suit could not be dismissed on this narrow ground, and also that there is no need for a remit, as the evidence which has been led in the case is sufficient to reach the right conclusion. Neither party claimed before us that it had any further evidence to offer.

We therefore, proceed to consider the central point in the case, to which we have amply referred already. "

16. Coming back to the case at hand, this Court finds in the light of the discussion of the earlier part of the judgment, that the appellant-defendant no. 2 were duly noticed in the proceedings before the Court below. The appellant-defendant no. 2 entered their defence by filing a written statement. They refuted the case of the claimants i.e. respondent-plaintiffs and also sought to shift their onus of liability upon respondent no. 3-defendant no. 1. The appellant was fully aware of the case against it. The appellant-defendant no. 2 submitted its pleadings, cross examined witnesses and introduced evidence in support of its case. The appellant made all out efforts to refute the case of the respondents no. 1 and 2-plaintiffs and also respondent no. 3-defendant no. 1. Thus it cannot be stated that the appellant-defendant no. 2 was not aware of or alerted to the case against it, or was taken by surprise on any issue. Consequently, it cannot be canvassed by the appellant that it was prejudiced by non framing of issues by the Trial Court. The Trial Court in its judgment, assailed in the instant appeal fully considered the defence of the appellants-defendant no. 1 and ruled against it. There was no miscarriage of justice.

17. In the light of the aforesaid discussion in the preceding paragraphs the question of law is ruled in negative against the appellant. There is no error of law in the judgment rendered by the Trial Court on account of the failure to frame issues.

18. In view of above, appeal stands dismissed.

19. The order and award dated 31.05.2004 passed by Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Kanpur Region, Kanpur in W.C. Case No. 35 of 2003 (Sri Putti Lal @ Putai Lal and other Vs Sri Umakant Trivedi and other) is affirmed. The appellant is liable to pay the compensation fixed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Kanpur Region, Kanpur to the claimants. The compensation awarded to the claimants by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Kanpur Region, Kanpur shall stand released forthwith.

20. The amount of compensation so awarded which has not been paid to the claimants shall be released along with seven percent interest from the date of institution of the claim till the date of payment of compensation.

Order Date :- 24.7.2018

Pravin