NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. versus GULAB NABI AND ANR.

Citation: [2008] 11 S.C.R. 315 · Decided: 24-07-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 11 S.C.R. 315 
... 
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. 
A 
v. 
GULAB NABI AND ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 4629 of 2008) 
JULY 24, 2008 
B 
--J. 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM 
SHARMA, JJ.) 
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 applica-
tion 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. 
~ 
... 
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. 
Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to High 
Court, the Court 
F 
HELD: 1.1 In the instant case, the question for con-
~ 
sideration 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 de-
ceased is concerned. Non-application of mind is clear G 
from the fact that since the State was not a party, the ques-
----
tion 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 
316 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 11 S.C.R. 
A 
1.2 Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plain-
est consideration of justice, the High Court ought to have 
set forth its reasons, howsoever brief, in its order in,dica-
tive of an application of its mind, all the more when its 
order is amenable to further avenue of challenge. Further-
s 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] 
c 
D 
E 
F 
· Breen v. Amalgamated Engg. ·Union 1971 (1) All ER 
1148; Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree 197 4 
ICR 120 (NIRC) - referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
1971 (I) ALL ER 1148 Referred to. Para 9 
197 4 ICR 120 (NIRC) Referred to. Para ~ 
. CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4629 
of 2008 
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 
M.K. Dua, Kishore Rawat and Dhiraj for the Appellant. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
.Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 
· 2. ·Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a 
Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dismissingthe-ap-
G peal filed by the appellant summarily. 
H 
3. The appeal was filed under Section ~O of the Workmen's 
Compens~tion 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-
t 
1· 
r 
.· 
L. 
} .. 
). -f"'!I 
I 
) 
I 
I ... 
.i 
I
1-
,1.... 
' 
' 
.. L.
- NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. GULAB NABI 
317 
. 
& ANR. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 
.. 
ceased is concerned. It was also pointed out that there is no A 
evidence to show that the deceased had sustained injuries un-
der the employment and in the course of employmen! of the 
deceased insured. 
4. A Claim Petition was filed under Section 4 of the Act 
against owner of the offending vehicle and the appellant-Na-
B 
•-' 
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: 
"Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned 
Standing Counsel for the State. 
The appeal has got no force. 
D 
w-
-4., 
The appeal is dismissed." 
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it was 
not a case where no substantial question of law is involved. In 
E
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.