1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.67 OF 2009. The New India Assurance Company, through its Divisional Manager, Ajay Engineering Works Compound, Adalat Road, Aurangabad. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. Kiran S/o Bhagwan Patil, Age 28 years, Occ.Driver, R/o Near Bafana High School, Fagane, Taluka and Dist. Dhule. 2. Smt.Archana Kirtikumar Jain, Age major, Occ.M.V.Owner, R/o Nagaon, Taluka and District Dhule. ... Respondents. (Respondent No.2 deleted as per Court's order dated 4.9.2009). ... Mr.P.C.Mayure, advocate holding for Mr.S.G.Chapalgaonkar,advocate for the petitioner. Respondent No.1 served. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 23.02.2010. 2 PER COURT 1. Rule, Rule made returnable and heard finally by consent. 2. The petitioner is New India Assurance Company. By this petition, the petitioner challenges a part of directions issued by the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation and Judge Labour Court, Dhule. In the final order rendered while deciding application (WCA) No.57/2005. The Respondent No.1 is original claimant who filed application for compensation U/s 22 read with Schedule IV of the Workmen's' Compensation Act, 1923. The petitioner was original opponent No.2 in the proceedings of said application. The Workmen's' Compensation Commissioner came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not liable to indemnify the Respondent No.1. The application was dismissed as against the petitioner. The petitioner had paid interim compensation of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) under no fault claim. While passing the final order, the Commissioner directed that the owner of the 3 vehicle shall reimburse the amount of compensation to the petitioner, to the extent it was paid by way of interim compensation. In addition, the Commissioner further directed that in case the petitioner would fail to recover such amount from the owner of the vehicle, the Divisional Manager and the Branch Manager of the petitioner will be liable to pay such amount from their own income to the petitioner. This direction is being challenged by the petitioner. 3. Though served, the Respondent No.1 did not appear in this Court. The Respondent No.2, i.e. owner of the vehicle was not involved in the lis and, therefore, his name was deleted by the petitioner. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and on consideration of the nature of directions under the impugned order, it is amply clear that the Commissioner patently erred while directing recovery of the amount from pockets of the Divisional Manager and Branch Manager. It is for the petitioner - New India Assurance Company 4 to examine whether the Divisional Manager or Branch Manager had committed any administrative default and to take further action. The Commissioner though has not ascribed any reason as to why such kind of direction which is most unusual was given. The discussion made in para 28 does not satisfactorily indicate as to why the Commissioner reached conclusion that the Divisional Manager and Branch Manager were responsible for payment of the interim compensation. The impugned direction seems to have been abruptly issued without any legal foundation. Needless to say, this is patently erroneous judicial direction which can not sustain and must go. 5. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned direction enumerated in para 4 of the final order of the judgment rendered by the Commissioner for Workmen's' Compensation, directing recovery of the amount from the Divisional Manager and Branch Manager on failure to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle, his hereby quashed. Rule made absolute 5 accordingly. No costs. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/wp6709