1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT

BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
WRIT PETITION

NO.67

OF 2009.

The New India Assurance Company,

through its Divisional Manager,
Ajay Engineering Works Compound,
Adalat Road, Aurangabad.
... Petitioner.

Versus
1. Kiran S/o Bhagwan Patil,
Age 28 years, Occ.Driver,
R/o Near Bafana High School,
Fagane, Taluka and Dist.
Dhule.
2. Smt.Archana Kirtikumar Jain,
Age major, Occ.M.V.Owner,
R/o Nagaon, Taluka and
District Dhule.
... Respondents.
(Respondent No.2 deleted as
per Court's order dated 4.9.2009).
...
Mr.P.C.Mayure, advocate holding for
Mr.S.G.Chapalgaonkar,advocate for the petitioner.
Respondent No.1 served.
...
CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.
Date : 23.02.2010.

2
PER COURT
1.

Rule,

Rule

made

returnable

and

heard

finally by consent.

2.

The petitioner is New India Assurance

Company.

By

this

petition,

the

petitioner

challenges a part of directions issued by the

Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation and Judge
Labour Court, Dhule.

In the final order rendered

while deciding application (WCA) No.57/2005.

The

Respondent No.1 is original claimant who filed

application

for

compensation

U/s

22

read

with

Schedule IV of the Workmen's' Compensation Act,

1923.
in

the

The petitioner was original opponent No.2

proceedings

of

said

application.

The

Workmen's' Compensation Commissioner came to the

conclusion that the petitioner was not liable to
indemnify
was

the

dismissed

Respondent
as

No.1.

against

the

The

application

petitioner.

The

petitioner had paid interim compensation of Rs.

25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) under no
fault claim.

While passing the final order, the

Commissioner

directed

that

the

owner

of

the

3
vehicle

shall

reimburse

the

amount

of

compensation to the petitioner, to the extent it

was

paid

by

way

of

interim

compensation.

In

addition, the Commissioner further directed that

in case the petitioner would fail to recover such
amount

from

the

owner

of

the

vehicle,

the

Divisional Manager and the Branch Manager of the

petitioner will be liable to pay such amount from
their

own

income

to

the

petitioner.

This

direction is being challenged by the petitioner.

3.

Though served, the Respondent No.1 did

not appear in this Court.

The Respondent No.2,

i.e. owner of the vehicle was not involved in the

lis and, therefore, his name was deleted by the
petitioner.

4.

Having

heard

learned

counsel

for

the

petitioner and on consideration of the nature of

directions under the impugned order, it is amply
clear that the Commissioner patently erred while
directing recovery of the amount from pockets of
the Divisional Manager and Branch Manager. It is
for the petitioner - New India Assurance Company

4
to

examine

whether

the

Divisional

Manager

or

Branch Manager had committed any administrative

default

and

to

take

further

action.

The

Commissioner though has not ascribed any reason

as to why such kind of direction which is most
unusual was given.

The discussion made in para

28 does not satisfactorily indicate as to why the

Commissioner

reached

Divisional

Manager

responsible

for

compensation.
have

been

erroneous

and

Branch

payment

of

that

the

Manager

were

the

interim

The impugned direction seems to

abruptly

foundation.

conclusion

issued

without

any

legal

Needless to say, this is patently

judicial

direction

which

can

not

sustain and must go.

5.

In the result, the petition is allowed.

The impugned direction enumerated in para 4 of

the final order of the judgment rendered by the
Commissioner
directing

for

recovery

Workmen's'
of

the

Compensation,

amount

from

the

Divisional Manager and Branch Manager on failure

to

recover

the

same

from

vehicle, his hereby quashed.

the

owner

of

the

Rule made absolute

5
accordingly. No costs.

(V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.)
asp/office/wp6709