CLX-RAJ-HC-2012-000214
Sriram General Insurance Co. Vs. Kartar Singh & Ors.
Rajasthan High Court · Rajasthan · 11 May 2012
DismissedCore ratio / Key holding
The non-giving of notice under Section 10 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923, does not bar the entertainment of a claim petition, as the Act is a social welfare legislation and want of or any defect or irregularity in the notice shall not be a bar to the entertainment of the claim.
The Commissioner has the power to record satisfaction that failure to give notice under Section 10 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923, was due to sufficient cause, and such satisfaction can be based on the social welfare objective of the Act.
Headnote
Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 — S.10 — Notice — Claim Petition — Maintainability — Social Welfare Legislation.
Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 — S.10 — Notice — Sufficient Cause — Commissioner's Satisfaction.
Issues for determination
- Whether the deceased was employed as a driver with non-claimants No.1 and 2 on their vehicle No. PB-04-K-9690 on 17.6.2010?
- Whether the deceased died while working in the employment of non-claimants No.1 and 2, under their instructions and for their benefit?
- What effect will the reply of the non-claimant insurance company have on the claimants' right to compensation?
- Are the claimants entitled to compensation from the non-claimants, and if so, from whom and how much?
- Relief.
Ratio decidendi
- The non-giving of notice under Section 10 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923, does not bar the entertainment of a claim petition, as the Act is a social welfare legislation and want of or any defect or irregularity in the notice shall not be a bar to the entertainment of the claim.
- The Commissioner has the power to record satisfaction that failure to give notice under Section 10 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923, was due to sufficient cause, and such satisfaction can be based on the social welfare objective of the Act.
Important points
- Held: Non-giving of notice under Section 10 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923, does not bar a claim petition, given the Act's social welfare nature.
- Clarified: Commissioner can record satisfaction for sufficient cause in not giving Section 10 notice, considering the social welfare objective of the Workmen Compensation Act.
- Affirmed: The Commissioner's assessment of deceased's employment and income as driver at Rs.9,000/- per month was upheld, as no evidence was produced to controvert it.
- Dismissed: The appeal challenging the award of compensation under the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923, was dismissed as no substantial question of law was involved.
Keywords
Workmen CompensationNoticeSection 10Social Welfare LegislationMandatory Provision
Related orders from this authority
- CLX-RAJ-HC-2025-000020The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. - Appellant Versus Manju W/o Dinesh Kumar Meena - Respondent
- CLX-RAJ-HC-2025-000019Shahida and Others - Appellants Versus Mubrak Shah and Others - Respondents
- CLX-RAJ-HC-2025-000015Rekha Kanwar W/o Late Shri Satveer Singh - Appellant Versus United India Insurance Company Limited - Respondent
- CLX-RAJ-HC-2025-000016United India Insurance Co. Ltd. - Appellant Versus Nine 2 Nine Super Market - Respondent
- CLX-RAJ-HC-2025-000027Buddharam S/o Shri Moolchand Saini - Appellant Versus Sher Singh Meena S/o Shri Khyaliram Meena ANDO RS – Respondents
- CLX-RAJ-HC-2025-000014Jakir Hussain Son of Shri Mohammad Hussain - Appellant Versus Shantilal Sansi Son of Shri Jagrup - Respondents
Read the full order on ClaimLex
Get the complete order text, a licence-stamped PDF, the citator (which orders cite this one), AI-powered answers, and save it to your matters.
Editorial summary prepared by ClaimLex — for reference only, not the official record. Please refer to the original order issued by the authority for the authoritative text.