ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY Vs. SANTOSH DEVI & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Claimants No. 1 to 4, namely, Smt Santosh Devi, Master Naveen Thakur, Master Shubham Thakur and Master Mohit Thakur, were, in the initially instituted claim petition before the learned Commissioner, therein described to be respectively the widow and the minor sons of deceased employee Inder Singh, who therein was described to be begotten from the loins of one Surat Singh. Co-claimant No.5 was described to be the widow of one Surat Singh, son of Uday Singh, whereas, co-claimant No.6 was described therein to be the father of the deceased employee.

(2.) The aforesaid deceased Inder Singh, during the course of his holding employment under respondent No.1, suffered his demise, in an accident involving the ill fated vehicle, whereon, he stood engaged as a driver. Obviously, his demise occurred, during the course of his performing, employment under respondent No.1. Consequently, upon demise of deceased employee Inder Singh hence occurring, during the course of his performing employment under respondent No.1. (i) Thereupon, the claimants, instituted a claim petition, before the learned Commissioner concerned, wherein, they claimed compensation against the respondent(s) impleaded therein, on anvil of theirs being jointly and severally liable, for liquidating the compensation amount(s), as may, come to be determined by the Commissioner concerned. However, (ii) after adduction of evidence by the contesting parties upon the relevant issues, an application cast under the provisions of Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the CPC), (iii) was instituted, before the Commissioner concerned, wherein, its leave was sought for incorporating in the claim petition, the hereinafter extracted averments:-

(3.) The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner herein, contended, of the application, cast under the provisions of Order 6, Rule 17 of the CPC, before the learned Commissioner, being, neither institutable nor maintainable before him, (i) given Rule 41 of the Workmen's Compensation Rules, 1924, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter:-