NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. TAHIRA BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the insurance company against the award made by the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation act. The respondents-claimant Nos. 1 to 5 preferred a petition under section 4 of the workmen's Compensation Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') before the Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation act at Shimla on the allegations that deceased gulshan Mohamad was employed as a driver by the owner Ashwani Sood, respondent No. 6, to drive the bus No. HP 03-0023 which met with an accident on 1. 4. 1996 and he died on the spot. Affer trial, the Commissioner allowed the claim holding the insurance company liable to pay the compensation awarded.

(2.) THE insurance company had submitted before the Commissioner that at the time when the ill-fated bus met with an accident, the deceased was drunk. According to the report of the Forensic Science laboratory, the alcoholic content of the blood of the deceased was 316 mg which was beyond the limits prescribed by law as provided for in Motor Vehicles Act. The commissioner did not accept this argument on the ground that according to the 'courts in many cases', under Workmen's compensation Act, the fact of contributory negligence will not make any difference to the outcome. This omnibus and sweeping generalisation cannot be accepted. Surely, this is not the manner to deal with a case where accidents are caused by auto intoxication. What 'these cases' are, have not been noticed. Sweeping generalisation of a proposition having no factual or legal foundation cannot be accepted as a statement of law, more especially from the commissioner who is to discharge statutory duties and decide on settled principles and not on personal whims and fancies. He should be alive to the situation that while dealing with an objection which has been raised, a clear and concise finding should be given based on law and not fanciful assumption.

(3.) THE appeal was admitted on two questions as formulated and filed with the appeal, viz. ,