IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2010 / 13TH SRAVANA 1932 Ins.APP.No. 49 of 2010() --------------------------------- IC 18/2008 ( OLD I.C. NO. 89/99) of EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COURT, ALAPPUZHA .................... APPELLANT -------------------- K.M.NAZAR,NEW BLUE STAR HOTEL,OPP.NORTH RAILWAY STATION,ERNAKULAM,REPRESENTED BY HIS NEXT FRIEND,MOHAMMED SAKKAF,S/O.BAPPU,RESIDING AT PUTHENPURAYIL,OPP.DHARANI,SRM ROAD,ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.A.JAYASANKAR SRI.MANU GOVIND RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR,ESI CORPORATION, N.S.ROUND,THRISSUR-20. ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN, SC, ESI CORPN. THIS INSURANCE APPEALS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/08/2010, ALONG WITH INAP. NO.50 OF 2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A. NO.2060/2010 IN INAP. NO.49/2010 CLOSED 04/08/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... Ins.A.NOs.49 & 50 OF 2010 ............................................. Dated this the 4th day of August, 2010. J U D G M E N T These appeals are preferred against the judgment of the Employees Insurance Court, Alappuzha in I.C.No.56/2005 and I.C.No.18/2008. In the previous round of litigation, the matter reached this Court and this Court had set aside the judgment and remanded the case back to the court with a direction to permit a next friend to be impleaded to represent the disabled petitioner in the case. In accordance with the direction, next friend has been impleaded, but unfortunately the next friend did not choose to adduce any evidence. So a situation has arisen whether additional evidence is necessary or not. It may be argued that since the court has found that a next friend is necessary to represent the petitioner, the evidence on record may not be sufficient or may not have all the trappings of a valid evidence. It is better to dispense with technicality and permit the next friend to adduce documentary as well as oral evidence in support of the contention so that the matter can be decided on merits without any difficultly. : 2 : Ins.A.NOs.49 & 50 OF 2010 2. Therefore the orders under challenge are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Employees Insurance Court for a fresh consideration after permitting both sides to adduce documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and then dispose of the matter in accordance with law. The Employees State Insurance Court is directed to issue notice to the next friend as well as to the Corporation fixing the date of hearing. It is made very clear that there cannot be any recovery till a final decision is taken in the matter. Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. cl : 3 : Ins.A.NOs.49 & 50 OF 2010 M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... A.S.NO.OF 2010 ............................................. 2nd day of August, 2010. J U D G M E N T