National Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Gulab Nabi and Anr.

Judgment/Order - Reasoned order - Requirement of - Summary dismissal of appeal by High Court - Challenge to c - Held: Reasons introduce clarity in an order - High Court should have given reasoned order, indicative of its application of mind - More so, appeal not dealt with properly, when it raised substantial question of law - Thus, order of High Court set aside - Matter remitted to High Court for fresh consider- D ation - Workmen's Compensation Act, 1928- s. 30.

¶12

~ ...

¶13

Under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1928, the Commissioner awarded compensation to respondent no. 1 and directed the appellant-insurance company to make the payment. Appellant challenged the award by filing E appeal u/s 30 of the Act. High Court dismissed the appeal summarily. Hence, the present appeal.

¶14

Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to High Court, the Court

¶15

F

¶16

~

¶17

---,, ' .........

¶18

HELD: 1.1 In the instant case, the question for consideration by the High Court was whether the Insurance Company has a liability and, if so, what is the quantum. There is no suitable evidence so far as income of the deceased is concerned. Non-application of mind is clear G from the fact that since the State was not a party, the question of hearing the counsel for the State did not arise. Therefore, the order was passed without any application of mind. The order is also non-reasoned. [Paras 6 and 7] [317-E,F,G] 315 H

¶19

H

¶20

t 1· r

¶21

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2008] 11 S.C.R.

316

.·

c

L.

D

.. } ). -f"'!I I )

I I ... .i

1- ,1.... '

' .. L.

A 1.2 Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plainest consideration of justice, the High Court ought to have set forth its reasons, howsoever brief, in its order in,dicative of an application of its mind, all the more when its order is amenable to further avenue of challenge. Furthers more, the manner in which the appeal was dismissed is not the proper course while dealing with the appeal when it raised substantial question of law. Thus, the order of the High Court is set aside. The matter is remitted to it for fresh consideration in accordance with law. [Paras 8, 10 and 11] [317-H, 318-A,E,F,G]

¶33

· Breen v. Amalgamated Engg. ·Union 1971 (1) All ER 1148; Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree 197 4 ICR 120 (NIRC) - referred to.

¶34

Case Law Reference

¶35

1971 (I) ALL ER 1148 Referred to. Para 9

¶36

197 4 ICR 120 (NIRC) Referred to. Para ~

¶37

. CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4629 of 2008

¶38

E

¶39

From the final Judgment and Order dated 30~3.2008 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in First Appeal from Order No. 836 of 2006

¶40

M.K. Dua, Kishore Rawat and Dhiraj for the Appellant.

¶41

F

¶42

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

¶43

.Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.

¶44

· 2. ·Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dismissingthe-apG peal filed by the appellant summarily.

¶45

The appeal was filed under Section O of the Workmen's Compenstion Ac't, 1928 (in short the 'Act'). The primcirY stand taken by the appellant was that the claimant had not established the employer employee relationship so far as the insur~d de-

¶46

H

¶47

.

¶48

-^{NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.}^{_v._GULAB NABI} 317 & ANR. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

¶49

..

¶50

ceased is concerned. It was also pointed out that there is no A evidence to show that the deceased had sustained injuries under the employment and in the course of employmen! of the deceased insured.

¶51

•-'

¶52

A Claim Petition was filed under Section 4 of the Act against owner of the offending vehicle and the appellant-NaB tional Insurance Co. The Commissioner directed payment of' Rs.2,68,800/-to respondent No.1 along with interest@12%. In terms of Section 20 of the Act, the appellant-National Insurance Company was directed for payment to respondent No.1. The award made by the Commissioner was questioned before the c High Court in an appeal which came to be dismissed summarily, in the following manner:

¶53

"Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

w- -4.,

j

........

D

The appeal has got no force.

¶59

The appeal is dismissed."

¶60

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it was not a case where no substantial question of law is involved. In fact, the acceptability of the evidence in view of various concessions made by the claimant has been completely lost sight by the High Court.

¶61

E

¶62

There is no appearance on behalf of respondents. As rightly contended by learned counsel for the appellant, the question whether the Insurance Company has a liability arid, if so, what is the quantum was under consideration by the High Court. There is no suitable evidence so far as income of the deceased is concerned.

¶63

F

¶64

Non-application of mind is clear from the fact that since G the State was not a party, the question of hearing the learned Standing Counsel for the State does not arise. The order therefore has been passed without any application of mind. The order is also non-reasoned.

¶65

Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plainest con-

¶66

H

¶67

I

¶68

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2008] 11 S.C.R.

318

'

;;...

A sideration of justice, the High Court ought to have set forth its reasons, howsoever brief, in its order indicative of an application of its mind, all the more when its order is amenable to further avenue of challenge.

¶74

Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning, B M.R. in Breen v. Amalgamated Engg. Union (1971. (1) All ER 1148) observed: (All ER p.1154h) The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration.' In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree (1974 ICR 120 (NIRC) it was observed: 'Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. c^{Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision-taker to} the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at.' Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the 'inscrutable face of the sphinx', it can, by its silence, render it D^{virtually impossible for the courts to perform their appellate func-} tion or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone E against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking-out. The 'inscrutable face of the sphinx' is ordin~r:!y incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance.

¶75

.-·

¶76

!-· ' -¥ ,,....

¶77

The manner in which the appeal has been dismissed

¶78

F is not the proper course while dealing with the appeal when it rc;iised substantial question of law.

¶79

Above being the position, we set aside the order of the High Court. The matter is remitted to it for fresh consideration in G^{accordance with law. The parties are directed to place fresh evi-} dence and materials before the High Court for the purpose of adjudication for disposing of First Appeal No. 836 of 2006.

¶80

The appeal is allowed but in the circumstances without any order as to costs.

¶81

H N.J.

¶82

Appeal allowed.

¶83

,... /

¶84

_. ....

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gulab Nabi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gulab Nabi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Munigadppa Meenaiah versus the State of Andhra Pradesh

Bantu versus the State of U.P.

Shambhoo Singh versus State of Rajasthan

Suraj Singh versus Arijit Pasayat and Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, Jj.]

Mangoo @ Mangal Singh versus State of M.P.

M/S. Pioma Industries etc. etc. versus State of Kerala