Dismissed

M/S Aggarwal Refractory v. Manjit Kaur and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC13 Jul 2009FAO/3549/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellant challenged a workmen's compensation award issued against them due to a typographical error resulting in the wrong company name being impleaded. The court rejected the appeal, holding that since the correct appellant contested the case, filed a reply, and the error was clerical, the appellant could not derive benefit from it.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed by M/s Aggarwal Refractory against the compensation award passed in favor of the respondents is dismissed.

M/S Aggarwal Refractory Vs Manjit Kaur and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2009) — LawSathi Research

¶1

FAO No. 3549 of 2005 (O&M) 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

FAO No. 3549 of 2005 (O&M) Date of decision: July 13, 2009

¶4

M/s Aggarwal Refractory

¶5

........ Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Commissioner and others .......Respondents

¶8

Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur

¶9

-.-

¶10

Present: Mr. Tapan Kumar Yadav, Advocate for Mr. Jai Vir Yadav, Advocate for the appellant

¶11

Mr. Amit Jaiswal, Advocate for the respondents

¶12

-.-

¶13

Nirmaljit Kaur, J.

¶14

This is an appeal against the order dated 04.08.2004 and 17.05.2005 passed by the Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, Ambala.

¶15

Facts, in short, are that Shri Mohan Lal, deceased was working with M/s Aggarwal Refractory (P) Ltd. Moreover, by mistake respondent No. 2 for herself and on behalf of other respondents being mother, filed a petition under the Workmen's Compensation Act, seeking compensation on account of death of Shri Mohan Lal, husband of respondent No. 2 against M/s Aggarwal Industries through its registered Partner by mistake instead of M/s Aggarwal Refractory (P) Ltd. When notices were not served on M/s Aggarwal Industries, respondent No. 2 realised her mistake and supplied the correct address and furnished the address of M/s Aggarwal Refractory (P) Ltd. (Subhash Casting) through Shri Om Parkash Aggarwal. However, she did not amend the claim petition and title/memo of

¶16

FAO No. 3549 of 2005 (O&M) 2

¶17

parties. M/s Aggarwal Refractory (P) Ltd, the present appellant before this Court filed the reply. Since the memo of parties, had not been amended, the impugned award was also passed against the original impleaded respondent i.e. M/s Aggarwal Industries instead of M/s Aggarwal Refractory (P) Ltd.

¶18

The present appeal has, therefore, been filed with the primary arguments that after the passing of the Award dated 04.08.2004, an application was filed by M/s Aggarwal Industries, for substitution of M/s Aggarwal Industries in place of appellant. Similar application dated 22.03.2005 was also moved by the respondents/claimants under Section 152 CPC with a prayer to substitute the name of M/s Aggarwal Refractory (P) Ltd. in place of M/s Aggarwal Industries. The notice of the aforesaid applications was not given to the present appellant and the impugned order dated 17.05.2005 has been passed, substituting the name of the appellant in place of M/s Aggarwal Industries.

¶19

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I find that the appellant is taking advantage of the fact that by mistake the name of M/s Aggarwal Industries was mentioned in place of M/s Aggarwal Refractory (P) Ltd. Since, the memo of parties was not corrected, the award was accordingly passed in the name of M/s Aggarwal Industries, whereas the fact remains that fresh notice was sent in the name of the present appellant i.e. M/s Aggarwal Refractory (P) Ltd. Reply was also filed by the appellant. The entire case was contested by M/s Aggarwal Refractory (P) Ltd. Also, an application was moved to substitute the name of M/s Aggarwal Refractory (P) Ltd. in place of M/s Aggarwal Industries in the main award. It was, however, argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that no hearing was granted while substituting the said name.

¶20

I do not find any merit in the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant, inasmuch as, it was a simple case of typographical

¶21

FAO No. 3549 of 2005 (O&M) 3

¶22

error, and especially in view of the facts that the appellant has filed his reply in the main case and had contested the case, after getting due opportunity to do so. It was further borne out from the order dated 17.05.2005 that in fact, it was M/s Aggarwal Refractory (P) Ltd. and Shri Kalu Ram, who is authorised by M/s Aggarwal Refractory, to conduct the case, had pursued the same through out. Thus, M/s Aggarwal Refractory (P) Ltd. had been pursuing their case ever-since. It was a typographical error. The entire case was defended by M/s Aggarwal Refractory (P) Ltd. itself, and the appellant cannot be allowed to take any advantage, at this stage of the typographical error.

¶23

It is a case, wherein the deceased Mohan Lal died on account of electrocution on the tubewell motor, belonging to the appellant. As per the findings of the Commissioner and from the perusal of the statement of witness RW1 Satish Kumar, Manager of the appellant, it is manifest that the deceased died while working in the factory of the appellant. The testimony of RW3, Madan Lal, is relevant, as it is admitted by him that the site where deceased Mohan Lal met with an accident, belonged to the appellant. In fact, this witness has also admitted that deceased Mohan Lal used to come to factory daily for work. Such evidence, wherein the witnesses of the appellant have admitted the factum of the deceased Mohan Lal coming daily for work in the appellantfactory,there is no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed being devoid of merits.

¶24

(Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge

¶25

July 13, 2009 mohan

¶26

Whether to be referred to reporter : Yes/No

M/S Aggarwal Refractory v. Manjit Kaur and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Aggarwal Refractory v. Manjit Kaur and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Surjit Kaur and Ors.

Haryana State Electricity Board and Ors. Vs M/S Vikas Steel Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Ramesh Vs State of Haryana

Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs Som Nath

Sham Lal Vs Anwar

Jitender Singh Vs Union of India