REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2008
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.11516 of 2006)
National Insurance Co. Ltd. ..Appellant
Versus
Gulab Nabi and Anr. ..Respondents
JUDGMENT
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 dismissing the
appeal filed by the appellant summarily.
3. The appeal was filed under Section 30 of the Workmen's
Compensation Act, 1928 (in short the `Act'). The primary
stand taken by the appellant was that the claimant had not
established the employer employee relationship so far as the
insured deceased is concerned. It was also pointed out that
there is no evidence to show that the deceased had sustained
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
