National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Gulab Nabi & Anr

injuries under the employment and in the course of

employment of the deceased insured.

4. A Claim Petition was filed under Section 4 of the Act

against owner of the offending vehicle and the appellant-

National Insurance Co. The Commissioner directed payment

of Rs.2,68,800/- to respondent No.1 along with interest

@12%. In terms of Section 20 of the Act, the appellant-

National Insurance Company was directed for payment to

respondent No.1. The award made by the Commissioner was

questioned before the High Court in an appeal which came to

be dismissed summarily in the following manner:

2

"Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

The appeal has got no force.

The appeal is dismissed."

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it was

not a case where no substantial question of law is involved. In

fact, the acceptability of the evidence in view of various

concessions made by the claimant has been completely lost

sight by the High Court.

6. There is no appearance on behalf of respondents. As

rightly contended by learned counsel for the appellant, the

question whether the Insurance Company has a liability and,

if so, what is the quantum was under consideration by the

High Court. There is no suitable evidence so far as income of

the deceased is concerned.

7. Non-application of mind is clear from the fact that since

the State was not a party, the question of hearing the learned

3 Standing Counsel for the State does not arise. The order

therefore has been passed without any application of mind.

The order is also non-reasoned.

8. Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plainest

consideration of justice, the High Court ought to have set forth

its reasons, howsoever brief, in its order indicative of an

application of its mind, all the more when its order is

amenable to further avenue of challenge.

9. Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning,

M.R. in Breen v. Amalgamated Engg. Union (1971 (1) All ER

1148) observed: (All ER p.1154h) `The giving of reasons is one

of the fundamentals of good administration.' In Alexander

Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree (1974 ICR 120 (NIRC) it was

observed: `Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice.

Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision-taker

to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion

arrived at.' Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The

4 emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals

the `inscrutable face of the sphinx', it can, by its silence,

render it virtually impossible for the courts to perform their

appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in

adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an

indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least

sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter

before court. Another rationale is that the affected party can

know why the decision has gone against him. One of the

salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out

reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking-out.

The `inscrutable face of the sphinx' is ordinarily incongruous

with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance.

10. The manner in which the appeal has been dismissed is

not the proper course while dealing with the appeal when it

raised substantial question of law.

11. Above being the position, we set aside the order of the

High Court. The matter is remitted to it for fresh consideration

5 in accordance with law. The parties are directed to place fresh

evidence and materials before the High Court for the purpose

of adjudication for disposing of First Appeal No. 836 of 2006.

12. The appeal is allowed but in the circumstances without

any order as to costs.

...........................................J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

...........................................J. (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)

New Delhi, July 24, 2008

6