Delhi High Court
Gurmit Singh vs M/S Cholamandalam Ms General ... on 15 December, 2022
Neutral Citation Number : 2022/DHC/005731
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO 475/2018
Date of Decision: 15.12.2022
IN THE MATTER OF:
GURMIT SINGH ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. R.K. Nain and Mr. Chandan
Prajapati, Advocates
Versus
M/S CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD &
ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Pankaj Gupta and Ms. Suman
Bagga, Advocates for respondent
No. 1
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
JUDGMENT
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL. 41745/2018 (Delay)
1. By way of present application filed under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act read with Section 30(2) of the Employees' Compensation
Act, 1923 (hereinafter, referred to as the 'EC Act'), the appellant seeks
condonation of delay of 331 days in filing the present appeal.
2. Mr. R.K. Nain, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant was employed as a driver on a truck owned by respondent
Digitally Signed
By:SANGEETA ANAND
Signing Date:22.12.2022
No. 2, which met with an accident on 01.01.2015. It was claimed that the
12:44:30
Neutral Citation Number : 2022/DHC/005731
appellant sustained grievous injuries in the said accident, after which he
had no source of income. It is stated that the appellant is a poor person
and could not seek appropriate legal advice timely for want of funds.
Further, though the impugned order was passed on 14.08.2017, a copy of
the same was only received by the appellant much later. Therefore, in
view of the aforenoted submissions and the facts and circumstances of
the case, the application is allowed and the delay of 331 days in filing the
accompanying appeal is condoned.
3. The application stands disposed of in the above terms.
FAO 475/2018
1. By way of present appeal filed under Section 30 of the EC Act, the
appellant/claimant has assailed the order dated 14.08.2017 passed by the
learned Commissioner, Employees' Compensation, District East, Delhi
in Case No. WC/222/NW/2015.
2. The appellant had initially filed a claim petition under Section 22
of the EC Act before the learned Commissioner, District North-West,
Nimri Colony, Ashok Vihar, Delhi on 26.11.2015. It was claimed that
the appellant was employed as a first driver on vehicle bearing No. HR-
55-T-7506 (Truck) at a salary of Rs.9,000/- per month plus Rs.200/- per
day as food allowance. On 01.01.2015, the appellant after getting his
vehicle loaded with apples at Delhi, left for Bangalore. Sh. Nand Lal
accompanied the appellant on the journey as a second driver. It was
claimed that when the truck had reached Jaipur Bypass, its tyre got burst.
At the time of the incident, the truck was driven by Sh. Nand Lal. The
truck lost control and fell from a flyover on the road beneath it. It was
Digitally Signed
By:SANGEETA ANAND stated that the appellant as well as Sh. Nand Lal sustained grievous
Signing Date:22.12.2022
12:44:30
Neutral Citation Number : 2022/DHC/005731
injuries and were taken to a hospital. It was further claimed that at the
time of accident, the vehicle was owned by respondent No. 2 (respondent
No. 1 therein) and insured with respondent No. 1 (respondent No. 2
therein). It was stated that respondent No. 1 had also charged additional
premium from respondent No. 2 under the EC Act. It was averred that
post accident, the appellant had become 100% disabled for the purpose
of his employment as a driver and his earning capacity has been totally
reduced.
3. A perusal of the record would show that both the respondents have
filed their respective written statement. The appellant and respondent
No. 1 have also filed evidence by way of affidavit(s). During the
pendency of proceedings before the Commissioner, an application came
to be filed on behalf of the appellant seeking withdrawal of the claim
petition with liberty to file afresh. Vide the impugned order, claim
petition was permitted to be withdrawn however, no liberty was granted.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned order
by contending that the order has deprived the appellant of his statutory
right to seek compensation. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1, on the
other hand, has supported the impugned order.
5. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and gone through the
entire material placed on record.
6. A perusal of the case records show that the appellant's claim
petition filed before the learned Commissioner was permitted to be
withdrawn on account of an application filed on his behalf. In the
withdrawal application, it was averred that the claim petition was being
withdrawn because the appellant intended to file a fresh petition. This
Digitally Signed
By:SANGEETA ANAND
Signing Date:22.12.2022
12:44:30
Neutral Citation Number : 2022/DHC/005731
Court is constrained to note that neither the appellant's application was
considered on merits nor any reasons was given to deny the liberty.
7. Time and again, the Supreme Court has taken the view that
reasons form the heart and soul of every order/pronouncement, and as
such, the importance of citing reasons in an order cannot be gainsaid. To
elucidate, in Secretary and Curator, Victoria Memorial Hall v. Howrah
Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity and Others reported as (2010) 3 SCC 732, it
was opined as follows: -
"40. It is a settled legal proposition that not only
administrative but also a judicial order must be supported
by reasons, recorded in it. Thus, while deciding an issue, the
court is bound to give reasons for its conclusion. It is the
duty and obligation on the part of the court to record
reasons while disposing of the case. The hallmark of an
order and exercise of judicial power by a judicial forum is to
disclose its reasons by itself and giving of reasons has
always been insisted upon as one of the fundamentals of
sound administration of justice-delivery system, to make
known that there had been proper and due application of
mind to the issue before the court and also as an essential
requisite of the principles of natural justice. "The giving of
reasons for a decision is an essential attribute of judicial
and judicious disposal of a matter before courts, and which
is the only indication to know about the manner and quality
of exercise undertaken, as also the fact that the court
concerned had really applied its mind. " (Vide State of
Orissa v. Dhaniram Luhar and State of Rajasthan v. Sohan
Lal)
41. Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. It
introduces clarity in an order and without the same, it
Digitally Signed
By:SANGEETA ANAND
becomes lifeless. Reasons substitute subjectivity by
Signing Date:22.12.2022
12:44:30 objectivity. Absence of reasons renders the order
Neutral Citation Number : 2022/DHC/005731
indefensible/unsustainable particularly when the order is
subject to further challenge before a higher forum. (Vide Raj
Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar, SCC p. 527, para 19; Vishnu
Dev Sharma v. State of U.P., SAIL v. STO, State of
Uttaranchal v. Sunil Kumar Singh Negi; U.P. SRTC v.
Jagdish Prasad Gupta, Ram Phal v. State of Haryana,
Mohd. Yusuf v. Faij Mohammad and State of H.P. v. Sada
Ram.)
42. Thus, it is evident that the recording of reasons is
principle of natural justice and every judicial order must be
supported by reasons recorded in writing. It ensures
transparency and fairness in decision making. The person
who is adversely affected may know, as to why his
application has been rejected."
8. Besides, labour statutes, such as the Act, constitute 'beneficial
legislation', enacted for the welfare of employees/workmen [Refer: New
India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Puran Lal and Others reported as 2021 SCC
OnLine Del 3483]. In this regard, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
Shri. Krishan v. Jasoda Devi and Ors. reported as 2017 SCC OnLine Del
11137 has opined thus: -
"43.1. The Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 is a piece of
social beneficial legislation and its provisions have to be
interpreted in a manner so as not to deprive the employees
of the benefit of the legislation.
43.2. The object for enacting the Employees' Compensation
Act even as early as 1923 was to ameliorate the hardship of
economically poor employees who were exposed to risks in
work, or occupational hazards by providing a cheaper and
quicker machinery for compensating them with pecuniary
benefits."
Digitally Signed
By:SANGEETA ANAND
Signing Date:22.12.2022
12:44:30
Neutral Citation Number : 2022/DHC/005731
9. Notably, facts of the present case are squarely covered by the
decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Upender Tiwari v. M/s
National Insurance Co Ltd. & Anr., FAO 345/2018, wherein while
setting aside the impugned order and reviving the compensation
application, it was held as under: -
"...It is noted that in the proceedings arising out of the case of
Abdhesh Sharma (supra), an explanation had been called for as to
why a cryptic and non-speaking order had been passed, it not
indicating as to what was the "liberty" that had been sought or as
to why it had been not granted. A counsel had appeared before this
court in the case of Abdhesh Sharma (supra) on behalf of the
Commissioner, Employees' Compensation and, on her request the
said matter was remitted for fresh order to be passed, it having
been assured on behalf of the Commissioner, Employees'
Compensation that the fresh order would indicate the reasons and
not be a non-speaking order."
10. Lately, this Court in Hakim Singh v. M/s New Kanpur Agra
Transport Company & Anr., FAO 134/2018 in alike facts and
circumstances while setting aside the impugned order therein, revived the
second claim application of the appellant and directed the same to be
decided in accordance with law.
11. In view of the foregoing decisions, this Court deems it apposite to
allow the present appeal. Accordingly, the impugned order dated
14.08.2017 is set aside and the claim application of the appellant is
revived.
12. Let the claim application of the appellant be listed before the
concerned Commissioner, Employees' Compensation on 10.01.2023 to
Digitally Signed be decided in accordance with law. The parties, who are present in Court,
By:SANGEETA ANAND
Signing Date:22.12.2022
12:44:30
Neutral Citation Number : 2022/DHC/005731
are directed to appear before the concerned Commissioner on the said
date.
13. With the aforesaid observations, the appeal is disposed of
alongwith pending application, if any.
14. The Registry shall communicate a copy of this judgment to the
concerned Commissioner, Employees' Compensation.
(MANOJ KUMAR OHRI)
JUDGE
DECEMBER 15, 2022
ga
Digitally Signed
By:SANGEETA ANAND
Signing Date:22.12.2022
12:44:30
