Bajaj Allianz Gen Insurance Co Ltd vs Leela Ram And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 5965 Raj/2

                                         (1 of 3)                 [CMA-231/2011]


      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

            S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.231/2011

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., having its
Registered Office at GE Plaza, Airport Road, Yarawada, Pune-411
006 and having its Regional Office at O-12 A, Ashok Marg, C-
Scheme, Jaipur through its Constituent Attorney.
                                                                  ----Appellant
                                   Versus
1. Leelaram s/o Shri Heeralal
1/1. Shyobai w/o Shri Leelaram
1/2. Suresh Kumar Mehra S/o Shri Leelaram
 (All resident of N.H. No.8, Shanti Vihar, Kotputali, Distt. Jaipur,
Rajasthan)
                                                 ----Claimants/Respondents

2. Smt. Kamlesh Meena W/o Shri Prakash Chand Meena, R/o Vill.

Hameerpur, Teh. Bansoor, Distt. Alwar
                                                                ----Respondent


For Appellant(s)         :     Mr. Virendra Agarwal
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. Atul Sharma

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

Order

26/10/2021

One of the submission of the counsel for the appellant-

insurance company is that the Workmen's Compensation

Commissioner (WCC) while deciding the present award had

impleaded the owner only on 29.09.2010 and passed an award

thereafter on 14.10.2010 without issuing notice to the newly

impleaded owner, although, under Rule 26 of the Workmen's

Compensation Rules, notice to the respondent party is essential.

Without hearing the owner and without pleading being put up

whether the deceased was working or was an employee or not,

(2 of 3) [CMA-231/2011]

the award has been passed. Learned counsel has raised other

objections with regard to breach of policy and the vehicle being

plied without permit which have not been addressed to by the

Commissioner. Learned counsel has also raised objections

regarding the father not being a dependent of the deceased.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that

the question regarding dependency is a question of fact which

cannot be pleaded in appeal before this court in view of the limited

questions of law which are required to be examined.

I have considered the submissions and also perused the

record.

This court finds that an amendment has been sought by

moving an application on 23.07.2009 with regard to the pleadings

and it is stated that inadvertently name of father as the claimant

and injured was mentioned instead of the deceased Niranjan who

was the son of the claimant. The said amendment was made at

the fag-end after the evidence was only recorded.

Another amendment application was moved on 29.09.2010

for replacing name of the owner Prakash Chand Meena to that of

his wife Smt. Kamlesh Meena. The Commissioner has in his own

handwriting changed the cause title but notices were not issued to

Kamlesh Meena. It is also seen that amended pleadings were also

not taken on record.

Rule 26 of the Workmen's Compensation Rules, 1924

provides as under:-

"26. Notice to opposite party - If the Commissioner does not dismiss the application under rule 24, or 25, he shall send to the party from whom the applicant claims relief (hereinafter referred to as the opposite party) a copy of the application, together with a notice of the date on which he will dispose of the

(3 of 3) [CMA-231/2011]

application, and may call upon the parties to produce upon that date any evidence which they may wish to tender."

This court finds that the Commissioner has failed to comply

with the provisions of aforesaid Rule and notices were not issued

to the owner insured, resultantly the order stands vitiated and

deserves to be quashed.

The matter therefore deserves to be remanded back to the

Workmen's Compensation Commissioner with directions to allow

the appropriate pleadings to be taken on record and notices to be

issued to the owner whereafter if required evidence may be

further recorded and judgment be passed accordingly.

Record is directed to be sent back to the concerned

Workmen's Compensation Commissioner to decide the matter. The

order passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner

challenged in this appeal is accordingly set aside.

The civil misc. appeal is accordingly partly allowed.

The amount deposited by the appellant shall not be

disbursed and the appellant would be free to move application for

returning the amount, however that would not preclude the

Workmen's Compensation Commissioner to pass a fresh order. The

Commissioner shall consider that the case is very old and it is

expected that Commissioner shall decide the matter preferably

within a period of six months.

Both the parties shall remain present before the Workmen's

Compensation Commissioner on 17.11.2021.

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

Karan/53

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)