Back
2015 Supreme(HP) 471
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.
National Insurance Company Limited – Appellant
Versus
Jhanpli Devi alias Mukka Devi and Others – Respondents
FAO No. 285 of 2014 & FAO No. 150 of 2015
Decided On : 21.5.2015
For the Appellants:Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. J.L. Bhardwaj, Mr. O.C. Sharma, Advocates.
The obligation of the court to render all assistance to summoning of witnesses and the provisions of Rule 19 of Order 16 CPC were central to the judgment.
Headnote:
Employee's Compensation Act - Compensation Award - Order 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure - Rule 19 of Order 16 CPC
Fact of the Case:
The appeals were against an award of compensation in a case related to the death of Vinod Singh. The insurance company contested the claim on the grounds of the deceased not having a valid driving license.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Commissioner had erred in not allowing the insurance company to lead additional evidence and in not providing assistance for summoning witnesses through Court process.
Issues: The issues included the validity of the driving license, the refusal of the court to allow additional evidence, and the obligation of the court to render assistance in summoning witnesses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the obligation of the court to render all assistance to summoning of witnesses and highlighted the provisions of Rule 19 of Order 16 CPC.
Final Decision: The impugned award was set aside and remitted back to the Commissioner for deciding the case afresh after permitting the insurance company to lead additional evidence.
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.
1. Both these appeals are directed against the award dated 1.4.2014 passed by learned Commissioner, Employee’s Compensation, Solan, District Solan, H.P. in WCA No. 1/2 of 2011 whereby the compensation of Rs. 7,94,212/- alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum has been awarded in favour of the claimants.
2. The claimants are aggrieved as no penalty as envisaged under Employee’s Compensation Act (for short ‘Act’) has been imposed, while the insurance company is aggrieved because the liability has been fastened upon it.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case carefully.
4. Bearing in mind the nature of order I propose to pass, it is not necessary to state in detail the relevant facts. The claimants are the legal heirs of deceased Vinod Singh and have sought compensation on account of his death. The specific defence of the Insurance Company was that deceased Vinod Singh was not possessed of a valid and effective driving licence, rather his licence was fake. The Insurance Company relied upon the verification report Ex.PW-3/A issued by the Licensing Authority, Motor Vehicles Department, Dehradun in respect of driving licence Ex. RA. But the owner thereafter produced another driving licence Ex. R-1X, which for the first time was put to RW-2 Narinder Kumar, in his cross-examination held on 31.7.2013.
5. The Insurance Company immediately thereafter filed an application for grant of permission to lead additional evidence by placing on record certain documents to show that the licence i.e. Ex. R-1X was fake.
6. The application came up for consideration on 11.11.2013 and was fixed for reply and consideration on 10.12.2013. On 10.12.2013, the Commissioner passed the following order:
“At this stage, ld. counsel for the respondents made no objection in case the application under Section 151 CPC for production of additional evidence be allowed. In view of no objection made by the ld. counsel for the respondents, the petition in hand stand allowed. Subject to cost of Rs.500/-. Cost not paid. Be paid on the next date of hearing. Now to come up for cross-examination of the dealing clerk of motor vehicle authority being last date granted on self responsibility. Steps be taken within 10 days. Let the case file be put up on 12.3.2014.”
7. When the matter was fixed on 12.3.2014, learned Commissioner passed the following orders:
“No RW present. One more adjournment prayed by the ld. counsel for the respondent but since it was last opportunity and petition is old one which was filed in the year 2011, hence I do not find justification to grant more opportunities for remaining respondent evidence and accordingly the remaining evidence of respondent No.2 is closed by the order of the Court. Now to come up for arguments on 14.3.2014.”
On 14.3.2014, the Commissioner heard the arguments and reserved the order, which was ultimately announced on 1.4.2014.
8. Can the Courts, Tribunals and Authorities proceed rashly with the cases only because these are old and targeted ones? Is the Court rendering any favour while granting assistance to the parties by issuing process to the witnesses summoned? These are certain questions which are required to be considered in these appeals.
9. Of late, there appears to be a rising trend in the Subordinate Courts where they are totally oblivious of their duties to render not only justice but do complete justice to the parties. This is particularly so when the cases are relatively old and targeted ones.
10. Firstly, I see no reason why the Commissioner should have imposed cost while allowing the aforesaid application preferred by the Insurance Company more particularly, when the appellant/ insurance company was not at fault, because admittedly it was the claimants who for the first time had confronted RW-2 in his cross-examination with driving licence Ex.R-1X and immediately thereafter the Insurance Company had moved the application for
