The Insurance Company at the first instance had no liability to meet the award of compensation, and the owner of the vehicle is liable under the Workman Compensation Act, 1923.

ORDER :

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant, owner of the vehicle, against the judgment dated 20th June, 2011 passed by the High Court at Calcutta in F.M.A. No.364 of 2007, titled, Arjun Ray Vs. Mahendra Rai & Anr., whereby the High Court, while setting aside the order of Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, West Bengal at Calcutta, has dismissed the said F.M.A. No. 364 of 2007.

3. The main grievance of the appellant-owner is that the High Court without discussing the merit of the case held as follows and remanded the matter for adjudication:

".......Since we have held that the Insurance Company at the first instance has no liability to meet the award of compensation, we would set aside all the chain of awards that have carved the fortune of these Appeals wherein the Insurance Companies were made liable to pay.

....... In view of the fact that the very maintainability of the orders passed by the Commissioners have been scuttled by us on account of the fact that direction upon Insurance Company to meet the compensation was not correct; automatically, the orders under Appeal would have no force and are required to be set aside after being sent on remand. Necessarily, we will not enter into other ancillary points which have been canvassed at the Bar on the question of date of payment of interest, liability of meeting the penalty which remains for adjudication after the matter is sent on remand....."

4. It is contended that after giving a finding on merit remand of the case is futile as the observation made by the High Court is binding on the Commissioner under the Workman Compensation Act. It is further contended that the workman has already been paid the compensation by the Insurance Company.

5. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the Commissioner has no jurisdiction under the Act to direct the Insurance Company to pay the compensation; it is the owner who is liable to pay. However, such submission cannot be accepted in view of the fact that the vehicle is insured with the insurance company and that without giving any reason the High Court held that the Insurance Company at the first instance had no liability to meet the award of compensation and doubted the maintainability of the order passed by the Commissioner. We are of the view that after such observations already made the remand of the case will be futile. In fact, we find no error in the order passed by the Commissioner under the Workman Compensation Act, 1923.

6. For the reasons aforesaid, we set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 20th June, 2011 passed by the High Court at Calcutta in F.M.A. No. 364 of 2007 and upheld the Award.

7. The appeal stands allowed.