Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Appeal No. WCK‑14 of 1980, beard on 30th September, 1980.
---S. 30 read with Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. V, r. 10‑A Service of notice by Commissioner‑Notice sent through registered post received back with remarks that addressee not available at given address‑Not a due service‑‑Order of Commissioner passed without valid notice‑Set aside on appeal and case remanded for decision after notice afresh.
Zahid Hamid for Appellant.
S. M. Kohistani for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 30th September, 1980.
The sole point which falls to be considered in this appeal against the order of the learned Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, awarding a sum of Rs. 15,000 as compensation to the respondents, on account of the death of their relation, Abdul Hameed, is whether the appellant‑Company was duly served with notice of the proceedings before the learned Commis sioner. It appears that the Commissioner had sent notice of proceedings to the appellant‑Company by registered, post A/D, as provided in Order V, rule 10‑A, C. P. C., and had also sent a copy of the notice for service on the appellant‑Company through his bailiff. The notice sent through the post has been returned undelivered with the endorsement that the addressee was not available at the address given. Under Rule 10‑A, service by post can only be held good if either there is an acknowledgment purporting to be, sighed by the defendant of the receipt of the registered communication or an endorsement by a postal employee that the defendant refused to take delivery of the same. In the instant case, neither there is an acknowledgment of service by the appellant nor an endorsement by a postal employee that the appellant had refused to take delivery of the notice.
2. As regards service of the notice by the bailiff, upon which the learned Commissioner has relied, it may be pointed out that the learned Commissioner has entirely lost sight of the provisions of Order V, rule 19, C. P. C., which require the examination of he serving official. Further more, the service of the notice does not appear to have been effected in the manner provided in rule 17. As such, there has been no .due service upon the appellant‑Company.
3. I would accordingly set aside the impugned order of the learned Commissioner and remand the case to him for issuance of fresh notice to the appellant in accordance with law.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer