Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Co Ltd vs Warisa & Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 9409 P&H

                                                      Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:084313



                                                                                 1
FAO No. 5761of 2016                                                     2023:PHHC: 084313

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                CHANDIGARH

                          FAO No. 5761of 2016(O&M)
                          Date of Decision: 05.07.2023

HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Limited

                                                                    ...Appellant
Versus

Warisa & Ors.
                                                                ...Respondents

CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARAMJIT SINGH

Present:-   Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate
            For the appellant.

            None for the respondents.
                 ***

KARAMJIT SINGH, J.

1. The appellant Insurance Company has filed this appeal against

the order dated 13.05.2016 passed by the Commissioner under Employees'

Compensation Act (for brevity, the Act) whereby compensation worth

Rs.8,79,800/- along with interest has been awarded to the legal heirs of

Yusuf who met with an accident during the course of his employment and

died. While passing the said award, the Court concerned directed the

appellant to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants with right to

recover the same from respondent No.6 (employer of the deceased), by

approaching the competent Court.

2. The appellant has sought modification of the said order only to

the extent that the recovery rights given to the appellant could be executed

by approaching the concerned Commissioner under the Act, on the strength

of a decision dated 24.09.2014 passed in FAO No. 458 of 2014 titled as New

India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Anita Sharma & Anr. The counsel

1 of 2

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:084313

FAO No. 5761of 2016 2023:PHHC: 084313

for the appellant made prayer that in the impugned order word "competent

Court" be replaced by word "Commissioner, Nuh at Mewat under the Act".

3. Notice of motion was issued vide order dated 28.09.2016, but

none has put in appearance on behalf of respondents No.1 to 5. Respondent

No.6 who was employer of the deceased had not contested the claim petition

filed by the claimants under Section 22 of the Act. So, the service of

respondent No.6 is dispensed with in the present appeal.

4. In light of the judgment dated 24.09.2014 passed by the Single

Judge of this Court in Anita Sharma's case (supra), the impugned order is

hereby modified to the extent that word "competent Court" is to be read as

"Court of Commissioner, Nuh at Mewat under the Employees'

Compensation Act".

5. With aforesaid modification, the present petition stands

disposed.

                                                     (KARAMJIT SINGH )
05.07.2023                                               JUDGE
Jiten

             Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No

             Whether reportable : Yes/No




                                                      Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:084313

                                  2 of 2