GAUTAM TRANSPORT Vs. HUSEIN AHMEDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation No. 60 of 1983. The present two appellants along with respondent No. 2--Insurance Company were held responsible by the learned Commissioner as the deceased had died during the course of employment of the present appellants. The learned Commissioner, while awarding Compensation of Rs. 30,000/- also imposed a penalty of Rs. 15,000/- and he ordered that the said penalty shall be payable by the present appellants and the Insurance Company was exonerated for the said amount. The appellants have challenged the said order and we heard Mr. Damani, learned Advocate for the appellants at great length. The Bench which was previously seized of this matter, by an order dated October 15, 1985, issued notice to respondent No. 9 while observing that they did not see any reason as to why this Court should interfere with the order of penalty. However, when notice was issued in pursuance of the said order of this Court, Mr. P.V. Nanavaty appeared for respondent No. 9.

(2.) WE heard Mr. Damani, at length and Mr. Damani, in the course of very exhaustive and able arguments, raised the following few contentions for our consideration:

(3.) REGARDING Mr. Damani's first contention that before passing any order imposing penalty, the appellants should have been heard, it must be said that it is clearly without any substance in as much as both the appellants had inter se agreed that appellant No. 2 Gajendra Kantilal Bhatt will be responsible as the vehicle on the relevant date was running in his name and was running for his purpose. Gajendra Kantilal Bhatt was imp leaded as a party in December 1983. He had, however, chosen to remain absent. Gautam Transport Company also remained absent. If the party is served with a notice of litigation against him and choose to remain absent, then he cannot be heard making a grievance that he was not heard, because an opportunity was afforded to him and he did not avail of the same. In that view of the matter, in the present case the contention raised by Mr. Damani requires to be rejected.