United India Insurance Co. Limited Vs. Prakash Shankar Gurav and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
motor vehicles act, 1988 - sections 147, 149 - coverage of cleaner-cleaner employed by his own father-employer-employee relationship-father and son as employer and employee whether permissible-worksman's compensation act, 1948-section 170-permission to contest the claim-held-it is to be noted that a father engaging his son as an employee in a vehicle owned by the father is not prohibited in law nor it can be said that such a situation is not normally possible. just as in any other avocation, it is possible for a father to engage his son as employee. if this proposition is accepted, the doubt cast on the documents filed by the claimant in support of his contention do not take on much significance.; (b) workman's compensation act, 1923 - section 170-summary proceedings-appreciation of material on record by the commissioner-degree of proof required-held-the appreciation of the material on record by the commissioner in a summary proceedings which is contemplated under the act could not be tested on the touchstone of degree of proof required in more formal proceedings requiring an in depth examination of the details sought to be advanced in order to evidence a fraudulent claim.; appeal dismissed. - [n. kumar, j.] authority-whether violative of principle of natural justice in as much as it is not a speaking order which does not diclose the application of mind of the disciplinary authority-held-when a disciplinary authority, on receipt of the report of the enquiring authority holding the delinquent employee guity of the charges levelled against him, he is expected to give a show-cause notice enclosing a copy of the report. when the delinquent employee gives his submissions or objections to the said report, he is bound to consider the enquiry report, the entire material collected during the enquiry, and then look into the objections filed by the delinquent employees, and then make up his mind agreeing or disagreeing with the finding of the enquiring authority. if the disciplinary authority agrees with the findings of the enquiring authority, it need not give detailed reasons as to why he intends to agree with the findings of the enquiring authority. but, he is bound to give reasons, in order to show his application of mind to the material which was before him coupled with the objections of the delinquent employee has urged. how the disciplinary authority should word his order, how much reasons should he given in the said order, language which should be employed in the said order, cannot be laid down as a proposition of law. but, the true test is when the authority which is vested with the power to review the said order looks into the said order, that authority should be satisfied that the disciplinary authority had applied its mind to the material before him before the order was passed. therefore, in the order of the disciplinary authority, there must be sufficient indication to show the application of mind by the disciplinary authority before it records its findings. it is not the law that no reasons be given. the law is detailed reasons need not be given. separate reasons need not be given. but, reasons must be given. giving reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration. failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. reasons are live-links between the mind of the decision taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusions arrived at. reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. right to reasons is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system. reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter dealt with, so that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. impugned orders passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority quashed. - 1 in his cross-examination and the further failure to offer respondent no. 4. in the instant case, at best the appellant would be demonstrating that the facts asserted are doubtful, but it would not advance the case of the appellant that there was no accident at all and that the claimant could not claim as a cleaner in the vehicle by virtue of the fact that he was related to respondent no. on that ground also, the appeal would fail.anand byrareddy, j. 1. the present appeal is by the insurance company seeking to raise the following questions of law:a) whether the commissioner was justified in ignoring his quasi-judicial functions while not considering the evidence placed on record and making the appellant liable to satisfy the award?b) whether the commissioner was justified in entertaining the claim petition without the relationship of workman and employer being established between the respondents?c) whether the commissioner was justified in entertaining the claim petition without production of the wound certificate from the government hospital where the first respondent claimed to have undergone treatment and in holding that he has suffered permanent disability on the basis of manipulated medical evidence?d) when the terms of policy and section 147 of the m.v. act does not require a coverage of a cleaner in the lmv, whether the commissioner was justified in making the appellant/insurer liable ignoring rule 100 of the kmv rules?2. the primary contention on behalf of the appellant is that respondent no. 2 and respondent no. 1 are father and son, respectively. respondent no. 2 is the insured and respondent no. 1 is the claimant who was said to be employed as a cleaner in the vehicle as on the date of the accident. the counsel was at much pains to demonstrate that the claim is fraudulent. as it is only for the purposes of raising a claim for compensation that respondent no. 1 is set up as a cleaner in the vehicle. there is no relationship of employee and employer and from the material on record, it is clear that the respondent no. 1 has made a shoddy attempt to fabricate the documents to establish his independent status as an employee in the insured vehicle. the learned counsel would draw pointed reference to documents such as a ration card and voters list which are suspicious documents and having regard to the tenor to replies made by respondent no. 1 in his cross-examination and the further failure to offer respondent no. 2 as a witness. it is apparant that the claim was pre-medicated. it is not open to the respondent to contend that the commissioner has committed an error in arriving at a finding contrary to the material on record and therefore has resulted in perverse award being passed, which gives rise to a substantial question of law.3. it is to be noted that a father engaging his son as an employee in a vehicle owned by the father is not prohibited in law nor it can be said that such a situation is not normally possible. just as in any other avocation, it is possible for a father to engage his own son as employee. if this proposition is accepted, the doubt cast on the documents filed by the claimant in support of his contention do not take on much significance. the accident is not denied. though the injuries said to have been suffered by the claimant are disputed by the appellant on the ground that they are not supported by any certificate issued by the competent authorities. it is to be noticed that however the claimant has furnished a certificate from a private doctor as to the injuries suffered by him. the appreciation of the material on record by the commissioner in a summary proceedings which is contemplated under the act could not be tested on the touchstone of degree of proof required in more formal proceedings requiring an in depth examination of the details sought to be advanced in order to evidence a fraudulent claim.4. in the instant case, at best the appellant would be demonstrating that the facts asserted are doubtful, but it would not advance the case of the appellant that there was no accident at all and that the claimant could not claim as a cleaner in the vehicle by virtue of the fact that he was related to respondent no. 2, the owner. therefore, in my opinion, the questions said to be urged as substantial questions of law relate merely to questions of fact which have been found in favour of the claimant. further the appellant has not been called upon by the commissioner in terms of section 170 to contest the claim of the respondent nor has the insurance company filed any application seeking such permission.5. in the result, the defences that are available and pleas that could be taken in the present appeal are circumscribed by section 149 of the motor vehicles act and in the result it is not possible for the appellant to raise any ground of defence other than what are available in the said provision. on that ground also, the appeal would fail. hence, the following judgment:i) the appeal is dismissed.ii) the amount in deposit is remitted to the commissioner for the benefit of the claimant.