HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2014/2010
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Authorized Signatory,
Regional Office, Sahara Chambers, Tonk Road, Jaipur
----Appellant
Versus
1. Smt. Bilasi Widow Of Late Shri Devlal, R/o Banetha,
Tehsil- Uniara, P.s. Banetha, District- Tonk Rajasthan
2. Rakesh Kumar S/o Late Shri Devlal, Minor Through His
Mother And Natural Guardian Smt. Bilasi Widow, R/o
Banetha, Tehsil- Uniara, P.s. Banetha, District- Tonk
Rajasthan
3. Kamla Devi W/o Shri Ramchandra Paliwal, R/o Plot No.
16, Sharma Colony, 22 Godam, Jaipur Rajasthan Owner
Of Tanker No. Rj-14/1G-4689
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Pritam Bijlani, through VC For Respondent(s) : Mr. Praveen Kumar Jain, through VC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 18/01/2022 A challenge in the instant misc. appeal has been made to the impugned judgment and award dated 15.07.2009 passed by the Court of learned Commissioner Workmen's Compensation, Tonk (for short 'the learned Commissioner') in WCC/F/84/2008 by which the claim petition filed by the claimants-respondents has been allowed and the Insurance company has been directed to pay compensation of Rs.4,48,000/- to the claimants-respondents with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of accident. (Downloaded on 19/01/2022 at 09:44:40 PM)
(2 of 4) [CMA-2014/2010] Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award, the Insurance company has preferred instant appeal on the various grounds that (i) the deceased was employed as a second driver of the vehicle, hence, he was not covered under the insurance policy
(ii) the learned Commissioner has committed an error in granting interest to the claimants-respondents with effect from the date of accident while the learned Commissioner should have passed this order from the date of filing the claim petition and (iii) that no notice under Section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 was given to the insurance company about the accident.
At the outset, learned counsel for the claimants-respondents has relied upon the judgement passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "North East Karnatka Transport Corporation Vs. Sujatha" reported in 2019 (11) SCC 514 in which the Hon'ble Apex Court has specifically held in Para Nos. 9 & 10 as under:
"9. At the outset, we may take note of the fact, being a settled principle, that the question as to whether the employee met with an accident, whether the accident occurred during the course of employment, whether it arose out of an employment, how and in what manner the accident occurred, who was negligent in causing the accident, whether there existed any relationship of employee and employer, what was the age and monthly salary of the employee, how many are the dependants of the deceased employee, the extent of disability caused to the employee due to injuries suffered in an accident, whether there was any insurance coverage obtained by the employer to cover the incident etc. are some of the material issues which arise for the just decision of the Commissioner in a claim petition when an employee suffers any bodily injury or dies during the course of his employment and he/his LRs sue(s) his employer to claim compensation under the Act.
10. The aforementioned questions are essentially the questions of fact and, therefore, they are required to be proved with the aid of evidence. Once they are proved either way, the findings recorded thereon are regarded as the findings of fact."(Downloaded on 19/01/2022 at 09:44:40 PM)
(3 of 4) [CMA-2014/2010]
Learned counsel for the claimants-respondents further
submitted that in this judgement the Hon'ble Supreme Court has approved award of compensation with interest from the rate of 12% from the date of accident, hence, the contentions reaised by the counsel for the Insurance Company are having no force.
Learned counsel lastly submitted that the entire amount of compensation along with interest has already been disbursed to the claimants-respondents.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record.
In the considered opinion of this Court, the findings given by the learned Commissioner are based on sound appreciation of evidence and the same is not liable to be disturbed by this Court as no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal.
Whatever the arguments have been raised by the counsel for the Insurance Company are based on finding of facts which has already been decided by the learned Commissioner and in view of the settled position of law the finding of facts recorded by the learned Commissioner cannot be reagitated again by way of filing an appeal under Section 30 of the Act of 1923 as the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in the case of "Golla Rajanna Etc. vs. The Divisional Manager And Anr. reported in 2017(1) SCC 45" that under the scheme of the Act the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner is the last authority on facts. The Parliament has thought it proper to restrict the scope of the appeal only to the substantial question of law, being a welfare legislation. It has been further held that the High Court has very limited jurisdiction and it has no jurisdiction to reappreciate the evidence recorded on its finding.
(Downloaded on 19/01/2022 at 09:44:40 PM)
(4 of 4) [CMA-2014/2010] Thus, in view of the discussion made hereinabove, no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal.
Hence, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company stands dismissed.
No order as to cost.
All the pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J HEENA GANDHI /12 (Downloaded on 19/01/2022 at 09:44:40 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)