The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W. P. (C) No. 2233 of 2007 The New India Assurance Company Limited ..Petitioner -Versus- The State of Jharkhand & others ……..Respondents. --- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH --- For the Petitioner For the Respondents : J. C. to G. P.I. : M/s. Arvind Kumar Mehta & Saiqua Mustafa,Advs. 07/17.1.2013
Legal Reasoning
Heard learned counsel for the parties. -- The petitioner-Insurance Company has challenged the order dated 31st March, 2004 (Annexure-5) in Workmen Compensation Case No. 7/2000, whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,53,090/- to the respondent nos. 3 to 8 as compensation for the death of one Mumtaz Ansari, said to be the driver of the Taxi No. BHW 535 belonging to the respondent no. 9. The petitioner has also sought for quashing of the order dated 12th December, 2006, whereby the request of the petitioner for review vide Annexure-6 has been refused. It has also sought quashing of the notice dated 27th April, 2006 (Annexure-9) in the said case, whereby it has been directed to make the payment by a particular date, failing with it would be liable to pay the same along with interest and penalty and the same shall be recovered in accordance with law.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an application for seeking compensation was filed under Section 22 of Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 by the dependents of the deceased Late Mumtaz Ansari before the court of Workmen Compensation Commissioner claiming that the deceased while driving the said vehicle being Taxi No. BHW 535 on 20th July, 1999 on way from Dhanbad to Hazaribagh was killed by some unknown miscreants for which a case bearing Vishnughara P. S. Case No. 47 of 1999 registered under Sections 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code were also registered against unknown. The petitioner who was the opposite party no. 2 was also noticed in the said compensation case and the claimants relied upon a Policy No. 31/504/701/5795 dated 13th February, 1999 said to have been issued by the petitioner-company in respect of the said vehicle for holding the Insurance Company liable for the compensation as it was claimed by the respondent nos. 3 to 8, claimants that the vehicle in question was under valid insurance for the period 13th February, 1999 to 12th February, 2000, while the occurrence took place on 20th July, 1999 within the validity period of insurance policy. -2- It is the case of the petitioner that he appeared on notice and filed its written statement, wherein it denied that the said policy was issued by the Insurance Company. However, the Workmen Compensation Commissioner proceeded to hold the company liable to pay the compensation of Rs. 1,53,090/- to the claimants vide the impugned order dated 31st March, 2004 while assessing the income of the deceased as Rs.
Decision
2,000/-. The impugned order is at Annexure-5. However, it is the case of the petitioner that while processing of file for making payment of the aforesaid awarded amount the office of the petitioner-Insurance Company detected that the policy was a fake and forged one and thereafter a petition was filed on 15th September,2006 (Annexure-6), requesting the concerned court to clarify the order on verification. The same has however been refused by the order as contained at Annexure-7 dated 12th December, 2006 and thereafter the petitioner has been directed to pay the amount. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned Award/order is therefore vitiated on grounds of fraud and fabrication of a document, which forms the basis of the order. Learned counsel for the respondents-claimants and the State have appeared. It is the contention of the respondents-claimants that the matter was fully deliberated during the course of the proceeding before the Workmen Compensation Commissioner where a photocopy of the policy was also produced but the Insurance Company failed to rebut the case of the claimants by any cogent evidence at the time of issuance of the order dated 31st March, 2004 by which the claim application was allowed holding the petitioner Insurance Company liable to pay the compensation of Rs. 1,53,090/-. It is submitted that there is no specific provision for review before the concerned court and the only remedy for an aggrieved party like the Insurance Company is to prefer an appeal under the provisions of Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act, for which it has to make a pre-deposit and further if any substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after going through the relevant material on record, it is clear that the petitioner was the opposite party no. 2, who had appeared on notice and filed written statement before the Workmen Compensation Commissioner and contested the case on merits. A copy of policy was also produced before the -3- Workmen Compensation Commissioner and the Insurance Company had adequate opportunity to rebut the same at the time when the proceedings before the Commissioner were going on before issuance of the impugned award/order dated 31st March, 2004. However, later on after passing of the Award and at the time of processing of file, as per the case of the petitioner himself it is said that it was found that the policy in question is fabricated. The question relating to fraud being practiced is a question of fact to be established before the concerned court or before the appellate forum which can determine the issue on the basis of evidence adduced on behalf of the parties. The petitioner has however chosen to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This court on a question of fact relating to fraud which can only be determined on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties is illequipped to come to a finding as to whether the parties have indulged in resorting to fabricated documents for obtaining a relief. The petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy for preferring an appeal which could have been considered and decided on all issues of fact and law by the competent court upon compliance of the provisions of Section 30 of the Act, 1923. Moreover, from the facts which have been brought on record to show that despite adequate opportunity to the petitioner-company to rebut the claim of the parties on the basis of a policy before the concerned court itself, it failed to do so and has subsequently come out with a plea of forged and fabricated document. In these facts and circumstances, I do no find that the impugned award/order suffers from any perversity or errors of law which warrant interference by this Court in supervisory jurisdiction. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. jk (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J)