The central legal point established in the judgment is that in cases of disputed liability, the party should be granted an opportunity to lead evidence and cross-examine to prevent a miscarriage of justice.

JUDGMENT

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J. (Oral)

1. By way of present appeal filed under Section 30 of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter, the 'EC Act'), the appellant has assailed order dated 01.06.2016 passed by the Commissioner, Employees' Compensation in Case No.CEC/D/30/WD/16/1076-1079, whereby claim petition of respondent Nos.1 and 2/claimants was allowed and the appellant directed to deposit death compensation, alongwith interest and funeral charges.

2. The contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that no evidence was led on behalf of the appellant and the impugned order came to be passed on the basis of written statement only.

3. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, on the other hand, has supported the impugned order. It is submitted that in an appeal under Section 30 of the EC Act, this Court is only required to go into substantive question of law, if any. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Golla Rajanna & Others. v. Divisional Manager & Another reported as (2017) 1 SCC 45, North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation v. Sujatha reported as (2019) 11 SCC 514 and State Bank of India & Others. v. S.N. Goyal reported as (2008) 8 SCC 92.

4. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3/employer has submitted that during the proceedings before the learned Commissioner, the factum of accident taking place out of and during the course of employment was admitted, and there was a valid insurance policy taken from the appellant.

5. It is noted that in the written statement filed by the appellant, though existence of an insurance policy covering the vehicle in question was admitted, the factum of death of the deceased having occurred out of and in the course of employment was disputed.

6. A perusal of the impugned order as well as the LCR would show that vide order dated 23.05.2016, the learned Commissioner noted thus :

"Matter discussed. R-I has admitted that accident resulting into death of deceased is caused out of and during the course of employment. ARR-II has filed WS wherein R-II has admitted the policy. Thus it is an admitted case. Hence further enquiry in this matter is not required. Heard. Concluded for order."

7. It is thus apparent that after noting that the appellant had admitted the insurance policy, no further opportunity was given to it to contest the claim of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. In the opinion of this Court, once the appellant/insurance company had disputed its liability, learned Commissioner ought to have granted it an opportunity to lead evidence as well as to cross-examine. The denial of same has resulted in miscarriage of justice.

8. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the concerned Commissioner to proceed in accordance with law, for which purpose the matter be listed on 20.03.2023 at the first instance. The amount, which is stated to have been deposited by the appellant, shall remain deposited and would be subject to outcome of the proceedings before the learned Commissioner.

9. Considering that the incident relates to the year 2016, the learned Commissioner shall make an endeavour to conclude the proceedings expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from today.

10. Appeal is disposed of in the above terms. Pending application is disposed of.

11. A copy of this order be communicated to the concerned Commissioner for information.