Disposed

Shriram General Insurance Comp v. Prem Bai and Ors.

Rajasthan HC28 Nov 2018CW/1119/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge Bench disposed of two writ petitions challenging interim compensation awards. Finding that the claim petition remains undecided despite previous observations, the Court directed the Prescribed Authority to decide the pending claim expeditiously within three months.

What did the court decide?

The Prescribed Authority under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 is directed to decide the pending claim petition expeditiously but not later than three months from the date of receipt of certified

Shriram General Insurance Comp Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writs No. 1118/2012

¶3

Shriram General Insurance Company, Through Regional Manager, Office E-8, Epip, Riico Industrial Area, Sitapura, Jaipur Through Its Constituted Attorney.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Rekha Bai W/o Late Daulat Ram

¶7

Anil S/o Late Daulatram

¶8

Lalit S/o Late Daulatram

¶9

Bhim S/o Late Daulatram, Claimants-Respondents No.2 To 4 Are Being Minor Through Their Natural Guardian And Mother Rekha Bai W/o Late Daulat Ram

¶10

Ramnathi Bai W/o Late Devlal, All By Caste Banjara, R/o Vill. Taleda, Teh. And Distt. Bundi.

¶11

Kalu @ Dhanraj S/o Bhanwar Lal B/c Gurjar, Vill. Taleda, Teh. And Distt. Bundi Owner Of Vehicle

¶12

The Employees Compensation Commissioner, Bundi Raj. Through Its Presiding Officer.

¶13

----Respondents

¶14

Connect with

¶15

S.B. Civil Writs No. 1119/2012

¶16

Shriram General Insurance Company Through Regional Manager, Office E-8, E.p.i.p. Industrial Area, Sitapura Jaipur Through Its Constituted Attorney.

¶17

----Petitioner

¶18

Versus

¶19

Prem Bai W/o Late Shri Ummed Singh

¶20

Tulsi Bai D/o Late Ummed Singh

¶21

Chutki D/o Late Ummed Singh

¶22

Kalu S/o Late Ummed Singh

¶23

Lali D/o Late Ummed Singh, No.2 To 5 Are Being Minor Through Their Natural Guardian And Mother Prem Bai W/o Late Ummed Singh B/c Banjara, R/o Vill. Taleda,

¶24

(2 of 3)

¶25

[CW-1118/2012]

¶26

Teh. And Distt. Bundi.

¶27

Kalu @ Dhanraj S/o Bhanwar Lal B/c Gurjar, Vil. Taleda, Teh. And Distt. Bundi Owner Of Vehicle

¶28

The Employees Compensation Commissioner, Bundi Raj. Through Its Presiding Officer.

¶29

----Respondents

¶30

For Petitioner(s) For Respondent(s)

¶31

: Mr. Virendra Agarwal Adv. : Mr. Sandeep Mathur Adv. & Mr. Hridayesh Singh Adv.

¶32

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

¶33

Order

¶34

28/11/2018

¶35

In both the writ petitions petitioner-Insurance Company has challenged the order dt. 9^th December, 2011, passed by the Employee Compensation Commissioner, Bundi directing the petitioner to make the payment of Rs. 50,000/- to the claimants as interim compensation.

¶36

This Court on 16^th April, 2012, admitted the writ petition and issued notices of writ petition as well as stay application to the respondents. This Court had further stayed the operation of order dt. 9^th December, 2011 and observed that the Prescribed Authority will decide the application filed by the claimants-respondents expeditiously on merits in accordance with law.

¶37

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order dt. 9^th December, 2011, has wrongly granted benefit of interim compensation under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923.

¶38

Learned counsel for the claimants- Mr. Sandeep Mathur, on the other hand submitted that there is a provision under Section

¶39

(3 of 3)

¶40

[CW-1118/2012]

¶41

143 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to apply certain provisions to claim filed under the Workman Compensation Act, 1923.

¶42

It is informed to this Court that till date the main claim petition has not been decided so far and the same is still pending. This Court finds that the authority is required to decide the claim petition and the observation made by this Court on 16^th April, 2012, has not been carried out so far.

¶43

This Court without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, deems it proper to direct the Authority under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 to decide the claim finally.

¶44

The interim award passed by the impugned order was already stayed by this Court and as such the parties would be bound by the final outcome of the claim petition and in case the claimants are held entitled for any compensation, the same would be paid to them accordingly.

¶45

Accordingly, the present writ petitions stands disposed of with the above observations. The Prescribed Authority is directed to decide the claim petition expeditiously but in no case later than three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶46

(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J

¶47

Monika/105-106

Shriram General Insurance Comp v. Prem Bai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shriram General Insurance Comp v. Prem Bai and Ors.

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

Mukesh Verma S/O Narayan Lal Verma, B/C Raigar Vs State of Rajasthan

M/S Santokba the Pharmacy Opd Vs License Authority and Asst. Drug Controller, Jaipur

M/S Vardhman Trading Company Vs Rajasthan State Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd. (Rajfed)

Shriram General Insurance Comp Vs Rekha Bai and Ors.

Chetan Kumar Todawata Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Smt Nandu Wife of Late Shri Kalu Lal Alias Amba Lal Gurjar Vs National Insurance Company Limited