NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. NAJRO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In terms of the court order dated 30.11.2005, explanatory reply- affidavit by respondent No. 3 is stated to have been filed. This, however, is not on record. It is directed to be placed and tagged on the file. A copy of the reply-affidavit has been shown to me by Mr. M.S. Chandel, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for respondent No. 3.

(2.) The text of the order dated 30.11.2005 clearly reveals that respondent No. 3 had failed to exercise his jurisdiction as well as he failed to discharge his statutory obligation of deciding issue No. 3 one way or the other. Instead, as far as issue No. 3 is concerned, he avoided and skirted to return any positive finding on this issue by merely observing that the marriage between respondent No. 1 and deceased Man Bahadur "has come into shadow of doubts". After making this impertinent observation, he went on to also observe that no compensation amount would be released in favour of respondent No. 1 "until or unless legal heirs certificate/dependant certificate/succession certificate are produced to the satisfaction of the court". After making these observations and despite the fact that he failed to return any positive finding on issue No. 3, the Commissioner went on to direct, after assessing and computing the compensation amount, the petitioner-insurer to deposit the same before him.

(3.) In the explanatory reply-affidavit, respondent No. 3 has admitted his aforesaid lapse and has submitted that if the matter is remanded to him he shall rectify the error, make amends and decide issue No. 3 on its merits.