- (1.) HEARD Sri B.B.Jauhari, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Ram Singh, learned counsel for the claimants -respondents 1 and 2 and perused the record.
(2.) THIS is an appeal at the instance of Insurance Company and has arisen from judgement dated 30.9.2005 passed by Workmen's Compensation Commissioner in Case No.62 of 2004, whereby it has awarded a sum of Rs.3,31,309/ - to the claimants on account of death of Akeel Ahmad in an accident took place on 6.5.2004 while driving Maruti Van No. DL -9 CF -3638.
(3.) IT is contended that Insurance Company specifically raised objection that deceased was not employee of owner of the vehicle and, therefore, Insurance Company was not responsible for payment of any compensation. In this regard an application was also submitted for additional evidence. Copy of the said application dated 12.8.2005 is on record as Annexure 5 to the stay application. The Workmen's Compensation Commissioner passed an order on 3.9.2005 to the following effect : English Translation by the Court "Parties were heard on the application filed on behalf of defendant no.2 raising objections. Thereupon it was ordered that the said application shall also be disposed of at the time of final order. Argument led by the parties were heard. Order stands reserved." It is strange that on one hand the Commissioner observed that it shall take decision on the application at the stage of deciding the matter finally and on the same day, it has reserved the order in the case itself and in the impugned judgment, it has taken a view against Insurance Company by holding the deceased was employee of owner of the vehicle, and has also observed that Insurance Company did not lead any evidence otherwise to dispute the aforesaid fact. This clearly shows that procedure adopted by Tribunal was erroneous and illegal.;