TAUKIR ALAM Vs. FIRDOSHI BIBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR . D.C. Chose, Advocate appears for respondent No. 2, National Insurance Company, at the instance of the Court. He has assisted the Court in the disposal of the appeal.

(2.) THERE is a delay of nine days in filing this appeal. Cause shown is sufficient. Delay in filing appeal is condoned. The appeal is taken up today itself for final disposal.

(3.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The Tribunal totally misdirected itself in holding that in the case of Jethu Ram (supra), the Supreme Court has taken the view that under Section 92 -A, the insurer is not liable to pay the awarded amount. It appears that the Tribunal did not at all understand the elementary and basic ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court. All that the Supreme Court was saying in the aforesaid judgment was that if a Tribunal, based upon policy of insurance, holds that the insurer is not liable to pay the compensation amount, under Section 92 -A also it cannot fasten the liability upon the insurer to pay the interim compensation amount as well. In other words in Jethu Rams case (supra), their Lordships of the Supreme Court were of the view that if, by referring to the policy of insurance and other materials, the Court finds that the insurer is not liable to pay the compensation amount, artificial distinction cannot be created between the liability to pay in the final analysis and the liability to pay or not to pay at the interim stage. Whether it is the liability to pay in the final analysis or the liability to pay under Section 92 -A, the insurer is either liable or not liable, the learned Tribunal, by misdirecting itself passed a patently erroneous order which deserves to be set aside.