Shri Ram general Insurance Ltd. Vs Pinki and others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Shri Ram general Insurance Ltd. Vs Pinki and others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Substitution applications (CMP (M) Nos. 1074 and 1075 of 2025) allowed and disposed of: legal heirs of deceased respondent No. 5 impleaded as respondents No. 5(a) to 5(c), subject to all legal and just exceptions; notice to them returnable on next date on steps within two weeks; matter listed on 24th September, 2025; question of applicability of Order 22 CPC and abatement kept open.

Issue for consideration

Whether, upon the death of respondent No. 2/5 (Vivek Dutta) during pendency before the Commissioner, the proceedings abate under Order 22 CPC, and whether his legal heirs can be brought on record in his place.

Court's answer

The issue of applicability of Order 22 CPC and the rigors thereof, resulting into abatement of proceedings, is kept open.

Ratio / Principle

Legal heirs of deceased respondent No. 5 Vivek Dutta, as proposed in the application, are permitted to be brought on record as respondents No. 5(a) to 5(c), the impleadment being subject to all legal and just exceptions.

Key takeaways

Section 23 of the Employees Compensation Act empowers the Commissioner to exercise the powers under the Code of Civil Procedure only to a limited extent, i.e. for taking evidence on oath, enforcing attendance of witnesses and compelling production of documents and material objects.obiter¶¶13
All provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are not applicable to proceedings under the Employees Compensation Act; the Commissioner has to follow the procedure prescribed under the Act and Rules (Part-5, Rule 19 to Rule 43).obiter¶¶14
Notice to newly added respondents No. 5(a) to 5(c) is to be issued, returnable on next date, on taking steps within two weeks.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Interim order in the insurer's matter CMP (M) No. 902 of 2024 (with companion substitution applications CMP (M) Nos. 1074 and 1075 of 2025): respondent No. 5 Vivek Dutta, who was respondent No. 2 (owner of the vehicle) in the Claim Petition before the Commissioner under the Employees Compensation Act, died on 14.2.2023, before the Commissioner's final award of 26.4.2023, and his death was not disclosed till the award was passed. The Court allowed the substitution applications and permitted the legal heirs of the deceased, as per the Family Register, to be brought on record as respondents No. 5(a) to 5(c), subject to all legal and just exceptions, and directed issuance of notice to them returnable on the next date on steps within two weeks, listing the matter on 24th September, 2025. The question of the applicability of Order 22 CPC and consequent abatement of proceedings was expressly kept open, the Court observing that Section 23 of the Employees Compensation Act confers on the Commissioner only limited powers under the Code of Civil Procedure, and that under Part-5 of the Rules (Rule 19 to Rule 43) all provisions of the CPC are not applicable to such proceedings.

Shriram General Insurance Company Vs. Pinki

CMP (M) No. 902 of 2024

2.7.2025

Present : Mr.Virender Sharma, Advocate, for the applicant/appellant.

Respondents No. 1 to 4 already ex parte.

Respondent No. 5 is stated to have expired.

CMP (M) Nos. 1074 and 1075 of 2025

These application shave been filed for substitution

of respondent No. 5Vivek Dutta on account of his death on 14.2.2023.

It has been stated that final award was passed by the Commissioner on 26.4.2023 and from the death certificate, it is apparent that respondent No. 5 who was respondent No. 2 in the Claim Petition being owner of vehicle, has expired prior to passing of award by the Commissioner.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that respondent No. 2 (respondent No. 5) was duly represented by counsel before the Commissioner and till passing of award, factum of death of respondent No. 2 Vivek Dutta was not disclosed and further that for death of respondent No. 2 during pendency of proceedings before Compensation Commissioner, appeal deserves to be allowed by remanding the matter to the

Commissioner for deciding afresh for adjudication of question of abatement on account of death of respondent No. 2.

Section 23 of the Employees Compensation Act empowers the Commissioner to exercise the powers under the Code of Civil Procedure to a limited extent, i.e. for the purpose of taking evidence on oath, enforcing attendance of witnesses and compelling production of documents and material objects.

In Rules framed under the main Act, Part-5 provides procedure as contained in Rule 19 to Rule 43, which indicates that Commissioner has to follow procedure as prescribed under the Act and Rules and all provisions of Code of Civil Procedure shall not be applicable to the proceedings under the Employees Compensation Act.

In view of above, the issue with respect to applicability of Order 22 CPC and rigors thereof, resulting into abatement of proceedings shall be kept open and at this stage, legal heirs of deceased respondent No. 5 Vivek Dutta as proposed in the application are permitted to be brought on record as respondents No. 5(a) to 5(c), as mentioned in para 3 of CMP (M) No. 1074 of 2024, who are in consonance with the details of family members/legal heirs in the record of Family Register, copy whereof has been placed on record.

Aforesaid impleadment is subject to all legal and just exceptions.

Applications are allowed and disposed of.

CMP (M) No. 902 of 2024

Notice to newly added respondents No. 5(a) to

5(c), returnable on next date, on taking steps within two weeks,

be issued.

List on 24^th September, 2025 .

(Vivek Singh Thakur), Judge.

2^nd July, 2025

(Keshav)