1

  NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.  2265-2266   OF 2018 [Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.27440-27441 of 2017]

Mohd. Anwar .. Appellant

Versus

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr. .. Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1) Leave granted.

2) These appeals arise from the final judgment and

order dated 22.08.2017 passed by the High Court of

Delhi at New Delhi in FAO No.424 of 2016 whereby

the  Single  Judge  of  the  High  Court  allowed  the

2

appeal filed by respondent No.1 herein and set aside

the order dated 06.05.2016 passed by the Employees’

Compensation  Commissioner,  Delhi  by  which  the

Commissioner partly allowed the claim petition filed

by the appellant herein.  By order dated 11.09.2017,

the  High  Court  also  dismissed  the  application

bearing  C.M.  No.32982  of  2017  in  FAO 424/2016

filed  by  the  appellant  herein  for  setting  aside  the

judgment dated 22.08.2017.  

3) These appeals involve a short point. Few facts

need mention infra to appreciate the point. Facts are

taken from the  list of dates and SLP.

4) The appellant herein is the claimant.  He was

under  the  employment  of  respondent  No.2  [M/s

Swati  (sic.  Swasti)  Structure  &  Concretes],  a

company,  on  the  post  of  Driver.  He  used  to  drive

TATA Tipper vehicle bearing No.UK 08V 4577.

3

5) On 08.03.2013, the appellant (claimant), while

on duty, met with an accident and sustained injuries

on his body.  The aforesaid accident occurred during

the course of his employment and it also arose out of

employment.  The  case  of  the  appellant  is  that  the

risks and rights of  the parties were covered by the

Insurance  Policy  and  hence  on  that  basis,  the

appellant filed a claim petition under the Employees

Compensation  Act,  1923  before  the  Employees

Compensation  Commissioner  at  Delhi  seeking

compensation  from his  employer  (respondent  No.2)

and  Insurer  (respondent  No.1)  for  the  injuries

sustained by him in the accident.

6) The claim petition was contested by respondent

No.2  (employer)  and  the  Insurance  Company

(respondent No.1 herein) on various grounds on facts

and  the  law.   One  of  the  objections  raised  by

4

respondent  No.1  was  in  relation  to  the  territorial

jurisdiction of the Court in filing the claim petition by

the claimant.  

7) By order dated 06.05.2016 (Annexure-P-7), the

claim  petition  was  allowed  in  part  by  the

Commissioner  against  both the  respondents  herein

and accordingly an award was passed against both

the respondents for a total sum of Rs.8,70,576/- by

way of compensation for the injuries sustained by the

appellant (claimant).

8) Felt  aggrieved  by  order  dated  06.05.2016,

Respondent  No.1,  the  Insurance  Company  filed

appeal  before  the  High  Court.   By  impugned

judgment, the Single Judge allowed the appeal,  set

aside the order of the Commissioner and dismissed

the claim petition on the ground of lack of territorial

jurisdiction.   Since  the  impugned  judgment  was

5

passed  without  hearing  the  appellant

herein(respondent  No.1  before  the  High  Court),  he

filed  an application for  setting  aside  the  impugned

judgment.   By  order  dated  11.09.2017,  the  High

Court  dismissed the  application.   Aggrieved by  the

judgment/order  dated  22.08.2017  and  11.09.2017,

the appellant (claimant) felt aggrieved and filed these

appeals by way of special leave in this Court.

9) Therefore, the short question, which arises for

consideration in this appeal, is whether any case was

made out by the Insurance Company before the High

Court.  

10) Heard  Mr.  R.K.  Nain,  learned  counsel  for  the

appellant  and  Mr.  K.K.  Bhat,  learned  counsel  for

respondent No.1.

11) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

and  on  perusal  of  the  record  of  the  case,  we  are

6

inclined to  allow the  appeals  filed  by  the  claimant

and  while  setting  aside  of  the  impugned judgment

remand the case to the High Court for deciding the

appeal  filed  by  the  Insurance  company  afresh  in

accordance with law.

12) In our opinion, the need to remand the case to

the  High  Court  has  occasioned  because  the

impugned judgment was passed by the High Court

without  hearing  the  appellant  herein  (who  was

respondent No.1 in the appeal before the High Court).

Indeed, this fact was not disputed.  

13) It is true that the High Court was constrained to

make  strong  observations  against  the  appellant

(claimant) on the manner in which he prosecuted his

stand in the appeal before the High Court, yet having

regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances

arising in the case including the nature of the claim,

7

the several issues involved therein and the grounds

raised  by  the  Insurance  Company  in  their  appeal

leveling  serious  allegations  against  the  appellant

(claimant)  and  few  others  which  also  found

acceptance  to  the  High  Court,  we  are  of  the

considered opinion that an opportunity of hearing, in

the  interest  of  justice,  needs  to  be  given  to  the

appellant before the High Court to contest the appeal

filed by the Insurance Company.  

14) In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeals

succeed  and  are  accordingly  allowed.  Impugned

judgment is set aside and the case is remanded to

the High Court for deciding the appeal filed by the

Insurance Company afresh in  accordance  with law

uninfluenced by any of the observations made by us

because  having  formed  an  opinion  to  remand  the

case  to  the  High  Court  on  the  ground  mentioned

8

above, we did not apply our mind to the merits of the

controversy.

15) Parties  to  appear  before  the  High  Court  on

12.03.2018  to  enable  it  to  decide  the  appeal

expeditiously.  

………………………………..J (R.K. AGRAWAL)

            ..………………………………J.      (ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE)

New Delhi, February 19, 2018