NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE REPRESENTED BY ITS ASST. ADM. OFFICER, SMT. K.M. KUMUDA Vs. SRI. GOVINDAPPA, S/O. LATE PEDDANNA, SMT. JAYAMMA, W/O. LATE PEDDANNA AND SIDDARTHA DRILLERS, REP. BY SRI. B. SANJEEVA RE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH this matter is posted in orders list, with the consent of learned Counsel for both the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

(2.) THIS appeal by the Appellant -Insurer is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 29/09/2003 passed in WCA/FC/24/2001 by the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Kolar, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commissioner' for short) to consider the following substantial questions of law:

(3.) THE claimants -1 and 2 have filed a claim petition before the Commissioner claiming compensation against, the R.C. holder of the offending vehicle mentioning the second Respondent as the name and address of the Insurance Company, if any yet to be furnished by the first Respondent', on account of the death of the deceased Sri. G. Ramesh in the road traffic accident; that occurred on 20th March 2001 contending that, he died dining the course of employment. Thereafter, the claimants have filed an application through their counsel for impleading the Insurance Company as second Respondent. It could be seen from the records that, inspite of service of notice, Insurance Company remained exparte and inadvertently, the Commissioner has permitted the counsel for the claimants to carryout the amendment without allowing the application filed for impleading by them and accordingly, the amendment has been carried out as per red ink page No. 13 of the records. It is the specific case of the learned Counsel for the Insurer -Sri. B.C. Seetharama Rao that, the Commissioner without following the due procedure as envisaged under the Workmen's Compensation Act, has concluded the proceedings and therefore, there were lapses on the part of the learned Counsel for Insurer as well as the claimants as they have not taken appropriate steps at appropriate stage and due to their fault, the parties cannot be deprived of their legitimate right to substantiate their respective case on merits.