Allowed

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sita Ram Singh through Lrs

Rajasthan HC12 Apr 2019CMA/635/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Workmen's Compensation appeal, the Rajasthan High Court set aside an award dated 05.10.2011 passed by the Commissioner. The court held that since applications under Order 14 Rule 5 and Order 6 Rule 17 CPC filed by the insurer were not disposed of before the award, the matter must be remanded for a fresh decision on merits after deciding those applications.

What did the court decide?

The impugned award dated 05.10.2011 is set aside, and the case is remanded to the Commissioner to dispose of the claim petition afresh after deciding the pending applications under Order 14 Rule 5 and

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

(1 of 3)

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 635/2012

¶4

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Regd. & Head Office: GE Plaza, Airport Road, Yerwada, Pune (Mah.)-411006, through its Authorised Signatory.

¶5

----Appellant/Non-Claimant No.2/Insurer of Truck No.RJ-14/GA-8519

¶6

Versus

¶7

Sitaram Singh @ Gopal Singh, S/o Bodu Singh, aged 37 years, by caste Sisodia Rajput, r/o Ravpura Dhanota, via Itawa Bhopji, Police Station Shahpura, District Jaipur(Raj.)

¶8

since deceased through Legal Representatives

¶9

1/1 Smt. Vimla Kanwar, W/o Late Sitaram Singh @ Gopal Singh, aged 36 years

¶10

1/2 Kiran Kanwar, d/o Late Sitaram Singh @ Gopal, aged 19 years

¶11

1/3 Roop Kanwar, d/o Late Sitaram Singh @ Gopal Singh, aged 17 years (Minor), through natural guardian and mother Smt. Vimla Kanwar, w/o Late Sitaram Singh @ Gopal Singh, aged 36 years

¶12

1/4 Mamta Kanwar, d/o Late Sitaram Singh @ Gopal singh, aged 14 years(Minor), through natural guardian and mother Smt. Vimla Kanwar, w/o Late Sitaram Singh @ Gopal Singh, aged 36 years

¶13

1/5 Hemant Singh, s/o Late Sitaram Singh @ Gopal Singh, aged 12 years (Minor), through natural guardian and mother Smt. Vimla Kanwar, w/o Late Sitaram Singh @ Gopal Singh, aged 36 years

¶14

1/6 Bhanu Kanwar, d/o Late Sitaram Singh @ Gopal Singh, aged 08 years (Minor), through natural guardian and mother Smt. Vimla Kanwar, w/o Late Sitaram Singh @ Gopal Singh, aged 36 years

¶15

all r/o Ravpura Dhanota, via Itawa Bhopji, Police Station Shahpura, District Jaipur (Raj.)

¶16

----Respondents/Claimants

¶17

2(a) Satyendra Singh, s/o Bheru Singh, r/o Fatehpura, Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur (Raj.)

¶18

–--Respondent/Non- Claimant No.1(a)/Registered Owner of Truck No. RJ-14/GA-2241

¶19

2(b) Datar Singh, s/o Bhanwar Singh, by caste Rajput, r/o Ravpura Dhanota, via Itawa Bhopji, Tehsil Shahpura, District Jaipur (Raj.)

¶20

–--Responden/Non-Claimant No.1(b)/ Owner by Agreement of Truck No. RJ-14/GA-2241

¶21

For Appellant : Mr. Vizzy Agarwal

¶22

(2 of 3)

¶23

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶24

Judgment/Order

¶25

12/04/2019

¶26

Appellant has filed this appeal, challenging the award dated 05.10.2011 passed under Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923.

¶27

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the claimant had died during the pendency of the proceedings before the Commissioner. Applications under order 14 Rule 5 and under Order 6 Rule 17 Code of Civil Procedure were moved by the appellant. The said applications were ordered to be heard and decided with the main case. However, at the time of deciding the main claim petition, applications under order 14 Rule 5 and under Order 6 Rule 17 Code of Civil Procedure were not disposed of. Rather the Commissioner has held that the written statement had not been got amended by the Insurance Company.

¶28

None has appeared on behalf of the respondents despite service.

¶29

A perusal of the record reveals that applications under order 14 Rule 5 and under Order 6 Rule 17 Code of Civil Procedure filed by the Insurance Company were to be decided along with the main claim petition. The said fact is evident from the interim order dated 28.10.2010. However, while disposing of the claim petition no order has been passed by the Commissioner on the applications moved by

¶30

(3 of 3)

¶31

the Insurance Company under order 14 Rule 5 and under Order 6 Rule 17 Code of Civil Procedure.

¶32

In these circumstances, it would be just and expedient to set aside the award and remand the case to the Commissioner for a fresh decision on merits after disposing of the applications moved by the Insurance Company under order 14 Rule 5 and under Order 6 Rule 17 Code of Civil Procedure.

¶33

Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. Impugned award dated 05.10.2011 is set aside and the Commissioner is directed to dispose of the claim petition afresh in view of observations made out.

¶34

(SABINA)J.

¶35

Mohita/62

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sita Ram Singh through Lrs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sita Ram Singh through Lrs

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

Ms Bsb Distributers Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs Ms Raj State Industrial Devandinvest Cor

Hariram Vs Babulal and Ors.

Yatish Sharma S/O Sh. Govind Ram Sharma B/C Brahmin Vs State of Rajasthan

Jarina Vs Trilok Kumar and Ora

Kanji and Ors. Vs Ramesh Chand and Ors.

Vishnu Prasad Sharma Vs Surjeet Singh and Ors.