# NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD v. GULAB NABI AND ANR

- **Citation:** [2008] 11 S.C.R. 315
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2008-07-24
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 4629 of 2008
- **Bench:** Dr. Arijit Pasayat, Dr. Mukundakam Sharma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/national-insurance-co-ltd-v-gulab-nabi-and-anr-23572
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Judgment/Order - Reasoned order - Requirement of -
Summary dismissal of appeal by High Court - Challenge to c
- Held: Reasons introduce clarity in an order - High Court
should have given reasoned order, indicative of its application of mind - More so, appeal not dealt with properly, when it
raised substantial question of law - Thus, order of High Court
set aside - Matter remitted to High Court for fresh considerD
ation - Workmen's Compensation Act, 1928- s. 30.
~
...
Under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1928, the
Commissioner awarded compensation to respondent no.
1 and directed the appellant-insurance company to make
the payment. Appellant challenged the award by filing
E
appeal u/s 30 of the Act. High Court dismissed the appeal
summarily. Hence, the present appeal.
Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to High
Court, the Court
F
HELD: 1.1 In the instant case, the question for con-
~
sideration by the High Court was whether the Insurance
Company has a liability and, if so, what is the quantum.
There is no suitable evidence so far as income of the deceased is concerned. Non-application of mind is clear G
from the fact that since the State was not a party, the ques-
----
tion of hearing the counsel for the State did not arise.
,,
Therefore, the order was passed without any application
' .........
of mind. The order is also non-reasoned. [Paras 6 and 7]
[317-E,F,G]
315
H
316
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 11 S.C.R.
A
1.2 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 in,dicative of an application of its mind, all the more when its
order is amenable to further avenue of challenge. Furthers more, the manner in which the appeal was dismissed is
not the proper course while dealing with the appeal when
it raised substantial question of law. Thus, the order of
the High Court is set aside. The matter is remitted to it for
fresh consideration in accordance with law. [Paras 8, 10
and 11] [317-H, 318-A,E,F,G]
c
D
E
F
· Breen v. Amalgamated Engg. ·Union 1971 (1) All ER
1148; Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree 197 4
ICR 120 (NIRC) - referred to.
Case Law Reference
1971 (I) ALL ER 1148 Referred to. Para 9
197 4 ICR 120 (NIRC) Referred to. Para ~
. CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4629
of 2008
From the final Judgment and Order dated 30~3.2008 of
the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in First Appeal from
Order No. 836 of 2006
M.K. Dua, Kishore Rawat and Dhiraj for the Appellant.

## Text

[2008] 11 S.C.R. 315
...
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
A
v.
GULAB NABI AND ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 4629 of 2008)
JULY 24, 2008
B
--J.
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
SHARMA, JJ.)
Judgment/Order - Reasoned order - Requirement of -
Summary dismissal of appeal by High Court - Challenge to c
- Held: Reasons introduce clarity in an order - High Court
should have given reasoned order, indicative of its application of mind - More so, appeal not dealt with properly, when it
raised substantial question of law - Thus, order of High Court
set aside - Matter remitted to High Court for fresh considerD
ation - Workmen's Compensation Act, 1928- s. 30.
~
...
Under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1928, the
Commissioner awarded compensation to respondent no.
1 and directed the appellant-insurance company to make
the payment. Appellant challenged the award by filing
E
appeal u/s 30 of the Act. High Court dismissed the appeal
summarily. Hence, the present appeal.
Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to High
Court, the Court
F
HELD: 1.1 In the instant case, the question for con-
~
sideration by the High Court was whether the Insurance
Company has a liability and, if so, what is the quantum.
There is no suitable evidence so far as income of the deceased is concerned. Non-application of mind is clear G
from the fact that since the State was not a party, the ques-
----
tion of hearing the counsel for the State did not arise.
,,
Therefore, the order was passed without any application
' .........
of mind. The order is also non-reasoned. [Paras 6 and 7]
[317-E,F,G]
315
H
316
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 11 S.C.R.
A
1.2 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 in,dicative of an application of its mind, all the more when its
order is amenable to further avenue of challenge. Furthers more, the manner in which the appeal was dismissed is
not the proper course while dealing with the appeal when
it raised substantial question of law. Thus, the order of
the High Court is set aside. The matter is remitted to it for
fresh consideration in accordance with law. [Paras 8, 10
and 11] [317-H, 318-A,E,F,G]
c
D
E
F
· Breen v. Amalgamated Engg. ·Union 1971 (1) All ER
1148; Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree 197 4
ICR 120 (NIRC) - referred to.
Case Law Reference
1971 (I) ALL ER 1148 Referred to. Para 9
197 4 ICR 120 (NIRC) Referred to. Para ~
. CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4629
of 2008
From the final Judgment and Order dated 30~3.2008 of
the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in First Appeal from
Order No. 836 of 2006
M.K. Dua, Kishore Rawat and Dhiraj for the Appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
.Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
· 2. ·Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a
Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dismissingthe-apG peal filed by the appellant summarily.
H
3. The appeal was filed under Section ~O of the Workmen's
Compens~tion Ac't, 1928 (in short the 'Act'). The primcirY stand
taken by the appellant was that the claimant had not established
the employer employee relationship so far as the insur~d det
1·
r
.·
L.
} ..
). -f"'!I
I
)
I
I ...
.i
I
1-
,1....
'
'
.. L.
- NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. GULAB NABI
317
.
& ANR. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
..
ceased is concerned. It was also pointed out that there is no A
evidence to show that the deceased had sustained injuries under the employment and in the course of employmen! 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-NaB
•-'
tional 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 c
High Court in an appeal which came to be dismissed summarily,
in the following manner:
"Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
Standing Counsel for the State.
The appeal has got no force.
D
w-
-4.,
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
E
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 quesF
tion whether the Insurance Company has a liability arid, if so,
j
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 G
the State was not a party, the question of hearing the learned
Standing Counsel for the State does not arise. The order there-
........
fore has been passed without any application of mind. The order is also non-reasoned.
8. Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plainest conH
I
318
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 11 S.C.R.
' .
;;...
A sideration 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,
B 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.
c 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 emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the
'inscrutable face of the sphinx', it can, by its silence, render it
D 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
E
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 ordin~r:!y incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance.
F
10. The manner in which the appeal has been dismissed
is not the proper course while dealing with the appeal when it
rc;iised 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 in
G accordance with law. The parties are directed to place fresh evi-
,...
dence 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 with__._ ....
out any order as to costs.
H N.J.
Appeal allowed.