( 1 ) THESE two appeals raise the same question and hence are disposed of by this common judgment. The parties are referred to as arrayed in the C. M. A.

( 2 ) THE appellant is the Insurance Company who insured respondents covering accidents to their workmen In both the cases the accidents occurred in the Stale of Maharashtra So far as the L. P. A. No. 175 of 1994 is concerned, the accident resulted in death of the workman and so far as the C. M. A. is concerned, the accident resulted in injuries to the workman. Cases under the workman s Compensation Act were filed before the Workmen Compensation Commissioner at Ranga Reddy District by the legal representatives of the dead workman and by the workman himself respectively. Their cases being allowed and compensation awarded the appeals were filed. So far as the death case is concerned, C. M. A. No. 293 of 1993 was preferred and the appeal having been failed, the present L. P. A. has been preferred. The C. M. A. No. 293 of 1993, arising out of the order of the Commissioner in the injury case, has been referred by the learned single Judge to the Division Bench as the question urged in the C. M. A. is the same as arising in the L. P. A.

( 3 ) THE sole question urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the compensation cases were to have been filed before the Workmen Compensation Commissioner at Maharashlra as the accident occurred there and that for the reason, the Commissioner at Hyderabad had no jurisdiction to entertain the applications. Consequently the awards were nullified and cannot be given effect to for which reason those must be set aside.

( 4 ) IT has to be mentioned that so far as the L. P. A. is concerned, the appellant though admittedly had received notice, yet did not enter appearance before the Commissioner and did not contest the case for which an ex parte award was passed. So far as the injury case is concerned, the appellant entered appearance in the case only after the case had been completely heard and reserved for judgment. The appellant filed counter in that case taking the objection, inter alia, of the case being not maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction as the accident had taken place in Sholapur police limits in Maharashtra State. The case was contested by the appellant by cross-examining the witnesses of the petitioner before the Commissioner and also filing documents like insurance policy containing vehicle number, name of the owner and regarding insurance etc. and closed his evidence. The record of the case does not show the question of lack of territorial jurisdiction to have been pursued before the Commissioner.

( 5 ) MR. K. LN. Rao, the learned Counsel for appellant urges placing reliance on Section 21 of the Workmen s Compensation Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act , that it is the requirement of Section 21 (1) of the Act that the application is to be made before the Commissioner of the area in which the accident took place resulting in the death or injury. It is argued that the provisions of the C. P. C. has no plenary application to the proceedings before the Commissioner. Section 23 of the Act vests powers of the Civil Court in the Commissioner only for the purpose of taking evidence on oath and enforcing attendance of witnesses and compelling the production of documents and objections. This submission is developed with reference to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 wherein an amendment was carried out by Act 54 of 1994, which came into force on 14-11-1994, to Section 166 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act providing that every claim application shall be made, at the option of the claimant, either to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred, or to the Claims Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the claimant resides or carries on business or within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant resides. A corresponding amendment was made to Sec

Click Here to Read the rest of this document