CHETAK INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORT LIMITED Vs. LUXMI DEVI
LAWS(P&H)-2014-7-36
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on July 02,2014

Chetak International Transport Limited Appellant
VERSUS
LUXMI DEVI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON, J. - (1.) THE petitioners invoking supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, have challenged order dated 21.1.2014 (Annexure P -3) passed by the Commissioner (under the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923), Bhiwani (for short, the Commissioner) whereby application of the petitioners for setting aside the ex -parte Award dated 4.6.2007 (Annexure P -1) against them, was dismissed.
(2.) HEARING has been provided to the counsel for the petitioners while going through the paper book. Krishan Pal Singh, husband of respondent No.1, was an employee of the petitioners. During the course of his employment with the petitioners, he died in a motor vehicular accident on 25.10.2003. Legal heirs of the deceased -employee had then filed a claim petition under the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, the Act). It was adjudicated by the Commissioner under the Act. The petitioners were proceeded against ex -parte. The Award in favour of the respondents granting Rs.3,89,280/ - as compensation, Rs.1,55,712/ - as interest and imposing Rs.1,94,640/ - as penalty, was ordered. Respondent No.5 i.e. the insurance company with which the motor vehicle due to negligent driving of which the accident had allegedly occurred, notwithstanding the petitioners (respondents before the Commissioner) having been proceeded against ex -parte, had contested the matter tooth and nail. The Commissioner had made the insurance company liable to pay the amount of compensation as well as interest thereon. However, liability to pay the amount ofpenalty of Rs.1,94,640/ - was fastened on the petitioners -employers. The Award was pronounced on 4.6.2007. An application for setting aside this ex -parte Award of 4.6.2007 was made by the petitioners -employers; it was dismissed on 21.1.2014.
(3.) IT would be relevant to mention here that the insurance company which was the sole contestant before the Commissioner had unsuccessfully challenged this Award of 4.6.2007 even before this Court in FAO No.3218 of 2007 (Annexure P -2).;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.