Allowed

Rajasthan Motors Deoli v. Jagdish

Rajasthan HC19 Dec 2017CMA/1062/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against a judgment of the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation. The High Court quashed the penalty order due to lack of a show cause notice and allowed the appeal, remanding the matter to decide issue no.3 afresh.

What did the court decide?

The order of penalty is quashed and set aside; the matter is remanded to decide issue no.3 afresh after giving a show cause notice.

Rajasthan Motors Deoli Vs Jagdish — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1062 / 2007

¶3

Rajasthan Motors Deoli Road, Tonk Vehicle Owner, Motor Cycle No. RJ-26M-1016 Through Power of Attorney Holder Suresh Kumar Gupta S/o Govind Narayan Gupta, Aged 38 Years, Resident of Village and Post Ghans, Tehsil and Distt. Tonk (Raj.)

¶4

----Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Jagdish S/o Ramdev, by Caste Khangar, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Devrawas, Tehsil Deoli, Distt. Tonk (Raj.)

¶7

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office, Opposite Judge Office, Tonk.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Praveen Jain.

¶10

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vimal Jain & Mr. A.N. Pareek.

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

¶12

Judgment

¶13

19/12/2017

¶14

The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 08.12.2006 passed by the Commissioner Workmen’s Compensation, Tonk in application no. WCC/NF/55/2003.

¶15

Brief facts of the case are that the claimant respondent no.1 Jagdish filed a claim petition under section 10-A read with 22 of Workman Compensation Act, 1923 against appellant as well as nonclaimant no.2 Insurance Company. In the claim petition it was pleaded that on 25.03.2002 he was coming from village on Motor Cycle of appellant bearing No.RJ-26-1M-1016 and when he reached near village Naya Gaon at National Highway No.12, then a Cow came in front of motor-cycle, therefore, he sustained various injuries on his body including fractures. It was further pleaded that he was driving

¶16

(2 of 3)

¶17

[CMA-1062/2007]

¶18

the motor-cycle under the employment of appellant and in the course of his employment he sustained injuries. Thus, he claim compensation for Rs.6,94,112/-.

¶19

The appellant-non-claimant no.1 filed written statement wherein it was pleaded that claimant was not workman of appellant firm. The relationship of employee and employer was specifically denied. It was further pleaded that no accident took place with the motor-cycle No.RJ-26-1M-1016 and police has not seized the above vehicle, therefore, it was prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

¶20

Counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Commissioner has wrongly decided issue no.3 without considering their reply. Counsel further submitted that the learned Commissioner has wrongly exonerated the Insurance Company from its liability to pay the compensation and submitted that the matter may be remanded back to the Commissioner for deciding issue no.3 afresh. Counsel further submitted that the learned Commissioner has passed the order awarding the penalty on the appellant without issuing show cause notice as provided under Section 4A of the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

¶21

Counsel for the respondent no.1 supported the judgment passed by the learned Commissioner and submitted that the award amount has already been disbursed to the claimant. Counsel for the respondent no.2 Insurance Company has supported the judgment passed by the learned Commissioner.

¶22

Heard Counsel for the parties.

¶23

The contention raised by the counsel for the appellant regarding wrongly deciding issue no.3 by the learned Commissioner deserves to be accepted and the learned Commissioner is directed to

¶24

(3 of 3)

¶25

[CMA-1062/2007]

¶26

decide issue no.3 afresh after considering material available on record. The order of penalty passed by the Commissioner is also quashed and set aside because no notice was issued to the appellant prior to passing of order of penalty as provide under Section 4A 3(b) :-

¶27

“(b) if, in his opinion, there is no justification for the delay, direct that the employer shall, in addition to the amount of the arrears and interest thereon, pay a further sum not exceeding fifty per cent of such amount by way of penalty;

¶28

Provided that an order for the payment of penalty shall not be passed under clause (b) without giving a reasonable opportunity to the employer to show cause why it should not be passed.”

¶29

Thus, the order passed by the learned Commissioner is quashed and set aside to the extent of issue no.3 as well as imposing the penalty on the employer.

¶30

In that view of the matter, the appeal filed by the appellant is party allowed and the matter is remanded back to the learned Commissioner for deciding issue no.3 afresh and for passing of the order of penalty after giving show cause notice to the appellant. All the parties are directed to appear before the Commissioner Workmen’s Compensation, Tonk on 09.02.2018. The amount already disbursed to the claimant shall not be recovered.

¶31

(INDERJEET SINGH),J.

¶32

Mohit Grover

¶33

Sr. No.5.

Rajasthan Motors Deoli v. Jagdish

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajasthan Motors Deoli v. Jagdish

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

Gaurav Agarwal Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Kamlesh Chand Agarwal Vs State Panchayati Raj Dep Ors.

Pramod Kumar Nigam and Ors. Vs Nawal Singh and Ors.

Smt Durga Devi Vs State Education Department Ors.

Vinod Kumar Sharma Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Ganeshram Mehra Vs State Education Department Ors.