MFA 256/2010. Gauhati High Court
| Case Number | MFA 256/2010 |
| Judgement Date | February 16, 2019 |
| Court | Gauhati High Court |
I N THE GAUHATI HI GH COURT
( HI GH COURT OF ASSAM; NAGALAND; MI ZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MFA 256 OF 2010
The National I nsurance Company Limited
- Appellant
- Versus –
Smti. Adori Deb Nath and 2 others.
- Respondents
BEFORE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTI CE KALYAN RAI SURANA
For the appellant : Ms. R.D. Mozumdar.
For the respondents : Mr. S. K. Singha
Date of hearing & judgment : 16.02.2017
JUDGMENT & ORDER ( ORAL)
Heard Ms. R. D. Mozumdar, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S. K. Singha, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3.
2 . This Court, while admitting the appeal, by order dated 26.11.2010,
formulated the following substantial question of law:-
“(i) Whether the impugned judgment dated 10.12.2009 passed by
the Commissioner of Workmen’s Compensation is hit by Rule 28
of the Workmen’s Compensation Rules, 1923.
3 . I n course of hearing, Ms. R. D. Mozumdar, learned counsel for the
petitioner, has urged another substantial question of law:-
“(i) Whether in view of non-compliance of the proviso to Section 21
(1) of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter
referred to as “the said Act”), the impugned judgment and award
has been vitiated.
4 . I n so far as the non-framing of issues is concerned, which is the
requirement of Rule 28 of the Workmen’s Compensation Rules, this Court is of the view that in a case of death and the claim under the said Act, the only relevant issue before the Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, is as to whether the death of the victim arose in course of employment for which the employer was liable to pay compensation and the corollary question whether the employer was duly indemnified by a valid insurance policy at the time when the accident occurred. Therefore, this Court does not find that the non-framing of issues by the learned Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, in the present case has caused any serious prejudice to the appellant because in the present case, the appellant had duly contested the said case by filing the written statement and, as such, they were aware as to what were the issues in the present case in hand. Therefore, first substantial question of law is answered by holding that the appellant did not suffer any prejudice while nonframing of issues and, as such, the impugned judgment and award is not liable to be set aside on the said count.
5 . I n so far as the second substantial question of law is concerned, this
Court deems it proper to refer to Section 21 of the said Act...
To continue reading
Request your trial