PREMIER INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. C THOMAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal coming on for hearing on Friday, the 12th March, 1982 before the Honorable Mr. Justice Mohan, and upon persuing the petition of appeal, the order of the Lower Court, and the material papers in the case, and upon hearing the arrangements of Mr. Sanjay Mohan, Advocate for the Appellant, and of Mr. K. Chandru, for M/s. Row and Reddy, Advocates for the First Respondent, and the respondents 2 to 5 having been given up, the court made the following order :

(2.) THIS appeal raises a very important question of law as to the Jurisdiction of the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 to direct compensation to be awarded against the insurer. There are number of authorities for and against. Holding that the Commissioner has no jurisdiction, there are rulings (1) Sudhir Kumar v. Hori (59 F. J. R. 165) and (2) R. B. Moondra and Co v. Bhanwari On the contrary, by importing the principle set out under Ss. 95 and 96 read along with S. 110-AA of the Motor Vehicles Act, the rulings in (1) United India Fire and General Insurance Co Ltd. v. Kamalakshi [1980-II L. L. J. 408], (2) Bibuti Bhusan Mukherjee v. Smt. Dinamani Dei [1982-I L. L. J. 73], Shri Ram Mining Co. v. Asst. Commissioner for Work. Comp. (57 F. J. R. 132) (4) Khwajabai v. Gulabkhan Jamalkhan Pathan (55 F. J. R. 105) and (5) Krishan Lal v. Munshi Ram (55 F. J. R. 292) hold that the Commissioner has every jurisdiction. May be I can follow either of the ruling depending upon the view I take. But having regard to the fact that this question is likely regard to the fact that this question is likely to recur again and again, it is better the matter is decided by a Bench. Therefore, I direct the papers to be placed before My Lord the Chief Justice for posting the same before a Bench.

(3.) WITHIN one month from this day, the appellant will pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- to the respondent-workmen. This of course, will be without prejudice to the rights of the parties.