Allowed

Jagwanti @ Jamwanti and Others v. Ram Saroop and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC25 Nov 2011FAO/7242/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against dismissal of a workmen's compensation claim was accepted. The High Court held the impugned order was perverse as the record showed prior knowledge of a withdrawn application. The order was set aside and the matter remanded for a fresh decision.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded to Competent Authority for fresh decision.

Jagwanti @ Jamwanti and Others Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

�� 

¶2

��

¶3

Date of decision: 19^th September, 2013

¶4

Jagwanti @ Jamwanti and others

¶5

Appellants

¶6

Versus

¶7

Ram Saroop and another

¶8

Respondents

¶9

�� 

¶10

Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶11

Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶12

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶13

Present: Mr. Manoj Chahal, Advocate for the appellants.

¶14

Mr. Nitin Grover, Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶15

�� !��"��#

¶16

One Suresh, who was working as Conductor on the vehicle ‘Tata4407’ bearing registration No.HR43948530 owned by respondent No.1 and insured by respondent No.2, received injuries in an accident which occurred on 03.03.2005. Claim application No.WC426 of 2005 was filed on his behalf before the Commissioner, Bhiwani under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, claiming compensation on account of the injuries suffered by said Suresh in the accident which occurred during the course of his employment with respondent No.1. However, during the pendency of the said claim application, Suresh

¶17

Singh Rattan Pal 2013.09.25 12:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court

¶18

¶19

��

¶20

died on 07.09.2005. His Legal Representatives were brought on record of the aforesaid claim application vide order dated 28.02.2006 and on the basis of statement made on their behalf by their counsel, the said claim application was ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn on 29.08.2006.

¶21

Thereafter, the claimants filed the instant claim application bearing WC No.34 of 2006 on 06.10.2006. The said claim application has been dismissed by the Competent Authority vide impugned order dated 26.09.2011 observing that the claimants have concealed the factum of previous claim application and have tried to mislead this Court.

¶22

Learned counsel for the appellants has referred to the records of the Competent Authority, a perusal of which would show that in para No.10 of the instant claim application the claimants have specifically mentioned with regard to filing and withdrawal of the earlier claim application. Not only this, learned counsel has also referred to the statement of counsel for the claimants dated 29.08.2006 and the order of the Competent Authority of the same date whereby the counsel has withdrawn the claim application reserving the right of the claimants to file fresh application and the permission granted by the said Authority.

¶23

Learned counsel representing respondent No.2 could not dispute the aforesaid facts which are on record.

¶24

In view thereof, this Court is of the opinion that a substantial question of law has arisen in this appeal to the following effect:

¶25

Singh Rattan Pal 2013.09.25 12:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court

¶26

¶27

��

¶28

Whether the impugned order

¶29

suffers from perversity and is contrary to

¶30

the record of the case?

¶31

Thus, in view of the facts as noticed above, the question of law as framed is answered in favour of the appellants. Resultantly, this appeal is accepted and the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Commissioner, Bhiwani under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 for fresh decision in accordance with law.

¶32

Let the parties appear before the said Authority on 9^th

¶33

October, 2013.

¶34

�"�� #� ��

¶35

�$%&$'($)��*!��+� ��

¶36

Singh Rattan Pal 2013.09.25 12:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court

Jagwanti @ Jamwanti and Others v. Ram Saroop and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagwanti @ Jamwanti and Others v. Ram Saroop and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

Bharat Kumar @ Bharat Bhushan Vs Baldev Singh

Barat Kumar @ Bharat Bhushan Vs Baldev Singh

Devender Kumar Vs Deepak Sharma

A.K. Malhotra Vs Ruby Singh & Anr.

Navdeep Kaushal & Ors. Vs Roop Lal & Anr.

M/S Lachhman Dass Subhash Chander Vs Gian Chand & Ors.