9911796707
TMI Blog1963 (4) TMI 75X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 57 for an order for re-assessment of the compensation payable to it. In that application it also made a prayer that the Tribunal might, if necessary, extend the time for making the applica- tion by three months from the date of its constitution. On September 21, 1957, the insurer filed in the Tribunal another statement giving the details of its claim. The Corporation in its turn filed its written statement in answer to the claim of the insurer. The Tribunal by its judgment dated February 17, 1958 held that under s. 16 of the Act an Insurer bad no right to approach the Tribunal directly for deciding any dispute with the Corporation regarding the amount of the compensation but had to move the Corporation to make a reference of the dispute to the Tribunal and this, the present insurer had not done. It also held that the insurer had not shown any cause why the time to make the reference to the Tribunal should be extended. It further held that the claim for compensation was by time. In the result, the Tribunal dismissed the insurer's application. The insurer obtained special leave 'from this Court to appeal against the judgment of the Tribunal and under that leave has pres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or its successor-in-interest, the appellant. The proceeding being incompetent from the beginning, the appellant cannot ask for anything in it. It would have been noticed that the insurer had asked the Tribunal to extend the time to enable it to make the application to the Tribunal. As it had no right to move the Tribunal, no question of extending any time to do so really arose. Now r. 12 of the Rule framed under the Act provides for the time within which a reference may be made to the Tribunal in respect of the determination of compensation payable under the Act. The time prescribed for the present case was three months from the date on which the compensation was offered to the insurer. Within these three months the insurer bad done nothing. This rule, however, contains a proviso which is in these terms : Provided that any such reference may be admitted by the Tribunal after the period of limitation prescribed thereunder this rule, if the person making the reference satisfies the Tribunal that he bad sufficient cause for not making the reference within the said period. If it is contended that the insurer was entitled to move the Tribunal directly under this provis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... called the Rules) amounts to ₹ 3,76,117/- and that as the aforesaid assests have not been transferred to the corporation the said amount of ₹ 3,76,117/- will be set off against and deducted from the amount of compensation payable to the Company. Certain correspondence then ensued between the Company and the Corporation and it would appear from it that while the Company accepted the computation of the amount of compensation made by the Corporation there was disagreement between the parties over the valuation of the assets of the Company which stood transferred to the Corporation. The Company objected to the deductions of ₹ 3,76,117/. Eventually on August 6, 1957 the Company preferred a petition of appeal before the Life Insurance Tribunal, Nagpur, constituted by the Central Government under s. 17(1) of the Act. On September 21, 1957 the Company lodged its statement of claim before the Tribunal. The Corporation resisted the claim out forward by the Company on various grounds. the Tribunal framed 27 issues but it gave its findings only on the first three issues and dismissed the claim. We may mention that we are not concerned with any of the issues except No. 3 beca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not adopted the proceedings before the Tribunal were incompetent. Sub-section 2 of s. 16 reads thus : The amount of the compensation to be given in accordance with the aforesaid principles shall be determined by the Corporation in first instance, and if the amount so determined is approved by the Central Government it shall be offered to the insurer in full satisfaction of the compensation payable to him under this Act, and if, on the other hand, the amount so offered is not acceptable to the insurer he may within such time as may be prescribed for the purpose have the matter referred to the Tribunal for decisions A plain reading of this provision shows that the reference had to be made not by the insurer but by someone else. Though that someone is not expressly specified in sub-s. 2, the context shows that that someone would be none other than the Corporation. The Central Government has not at any rate specifically prescribed the period within which the insurer has to move the Corporation for referring its claim to the Tribunal for decision. According to this provision the insurer is entitled to have the matter referred to the Tribunal for decision within such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is payable under Part A or Part B or Part C of the First Schedule to the Act, within three months from the date on which the compensation determined by the Corporation is offered to the insurer (ii) in the case of an insurer to whom compensation is payable under Part B of the First Schedule to the Act, within six months from the date on which the compensation determined by the Corporation is offered to the insurer (iii) in the case of compensation payable to a Chief agent or special agent under the proviso to section 36 of the Act, within three months from the date on which the compensation determined by the Corporation is offered to the chief agent or special agent, as the case may be : Provided that any such reference may be admitted by the Tribunal after the period of limitation prescribed therefor under this rule, if the person making the reference satisfies the Tribunal that he had sufficient cause for not making the reference within the said period. According to Mr. Desai, under sub-r. (1) of this Rule the Corporation has to make a reference to the Tribunal within three months. It would, therefore, according to him, follow that the insurer must move ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eference by someone' else and not the Corporation. That someone could be either the insurer or a chief agent or special agent who also is entitled to compensation under the proviso to s. 36. Learned counsel then advanced a rather novel argument. The argument is this. While the opening words of r. 12 may apply to the Corporation as to an insurer, a chief agent or a special agent sub-rr. (i), (ii) and (iii) thereof apply only to the Corporation, whereas the proviso applies only to an insurer or a chief agent or special agent as the case may be. If the provision, that is, the whole or r. 12 is read thus, the contention proceeds, there would be no lacuna in the rules, and the proviso to r. 12 would not be rendered redundant. All that Mr. Desai could say in support of his contention that sub-rr. (i), (ii) and (iii) of r. 12 must be construed to apply to the Corporation alone is that such a construction would avoid a lacuna in the rules. But what is the lacuna ? We have already pointed out that the lacuna is in not prescribing the time within which an insurer must move the Corporation for making a reference. That lacuna will not be removed even if we accept the construction pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be bound to make a reference if is moved by the insurer within the prescribed period. If that is so, then no occasion would arise for enabling the insurer to move the Tribunal for condoning the delay. According to Mr. Desai, however, the Corporation could be compelled by mandamus to make the reference. The short answer to that is that there being no duty upon the Corporation to make a reference after the expiry or the period prescribed by r. 12 no mandamus can issue to it. Another reason for not accepting the contention of learned counsel is that the proviso speak of the person making the reference satisfying the Tribunal that he has sufficient cause for not making the reference, within the same period. If the insurer is not the person making the reference, how can be be said to be permitted to satisfy the Tribunal about the sufficiency of the cause for condoning the delay in making the reference ? Mr. Desai, however, suggest that we should read the words if the person making the reference satisfies the Tribunal ... etc. as if they read if the person at whose instance the reference is made satisfies the Tribunal ... etc. 'That would be rewriting the provision which we ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
