Allahabad High Court
United India Insurance Company ... vs Dilbag Singh And Another on 6 July, 2021
Bench: Kaushal Jayendra Thaker
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?[A.F.R.]
Court No. - 37
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER DEFECTIVE No. - 641 of 2005
Appellant :- United India Insurance Company Limited
Respondent :- Dilbag Singh And Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Arvind Kumar
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
1. Heard Sri Arvind Kumar, assisted by Sri Komal Mehrotra, learned counsel for the appellant through video conference and perused the record.
2. This appeal, at the behest of the United India Insurance Company Limited, challenges the judgment and order dated 16.12.2004 passed by Commissioner Workmen's Compensation, Ghaziabad / Assistant Labour Commissioner U.P. Ghaziabad in W.C.A. Case No.23 of 2004 whereby the Court below had allowed the appeal upturning the decision of the medical board.
3. Substantial questions of law which are framed by the appellant herein read as under :-
(i) Whether the Commissioner is legally entitled to award higher amount of compensation than the amount claimed by the claimants ?
(ii) Whether in the absence of any proof of income or employment the Commissioner is legally entitled to award a higher compensation than the compensation claimed ?
(iii) Whether the Commissioner is legally justified to accept disability certificate without it being proved before him ?
(iv) Whether the Commissioner was legally justified to award 12% interest ?
(v) Whether the Commissioner was legally justified to fix the liability of payment of interest on the appellant company ?
4. Brief facts as culled out from the record are that the respondent who was an employee, sustained injuries falling within the Workmens' Compensation Act. He suffered permanent disability of 55%. However, the disability which was assessed came to be 100% as he was a driver by profession and he was injured to such an extent that the medical proof showed that at the age of age 50 years he would not be able to take up the vocation of driver.
5. In that view of the matter, Workmens' Commissioner held that he suffered 100% disability. The Commissioner has relied on the decision of this High Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Sri Krishna Mehta and another, hence it cannot be said that the said finding is in any way perverse calling for any interference by this Court.
6. The appeal under Workmen Compensation Act/Employees State Insurance Act has to be viewed very seriously in view of the judgment in Golla Rajanna Etc. Etc. Vs. Divisional Manager and Another, 2017 (1) TAC 259 (SC) and Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Siby George & Ors, 2012 Law Suit (SC) 470.
7. The finding of fact is that the injured was an employee who had sustained injury during employment and was incapacitated to the tune of 100%. This finding cannot be interfered as it is not perverse.
8. I am supported in my view by the decision of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.7470 of 2009 North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs. Smt. Sujatha decided on 2.11.2018 wherein the Court has held as under:
"15. Such appeal is then heard on the question of admission with a view to find out as to whether it involves any substantial question of law or not. Whether the appeal involves a substantial question of law or not depends upon the facts of each case and needs an examination by the High Court. If the substantial question of law arises, the High Court would admit the appeal for final hearing on merit else would dismiss in limini with reasons that it does not involve any substantial question/s of law.
16. Now coming to the facts of this case, we find that the appeal before the High Court did not involve any substantial question of law on the material questions set out above. In other words, in our view, the Commissioner decided all the material questions arising in the case properly on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties and rightly determined the compensation payable to the respondent. It was, therefore, rightly affirmed by the High Court on facts.
17. In this view of the matter, the findings being concurrent findings of fact of the two courts below are binding on this Court. Even otherwise, we find no good ground to call for any interference on any of the factual findings. None of the factual findings are found to be either perverse or arbitrary or based on no evidence or against any provision of law. We accordingly uphold these findings."
9. This Court, recently in F.A.F.O. 1070 of 1993 (E.S.I.C. Vs. S. Prasad) decided on 26.10.2017 has followed the decision in Golla Rajana (Supra) and has held as follows:
"The grounds urged before this Court are in the realm of finding of facts and not a question of law. As far as question of law is concerned, the aforesaid judgment in Golla Rajanna Etc. Etc. Versus Divisional Manager and another (supra) in paragraph 8 holds as follows "the Workman Compensation Commissioner is the last authority on facts. The Parliament has thought it fit to restrict the scope of the appeal only to substantial questions of law, being a welfare legislation. Unfortunately, the High Court has missed this crucial question of limited jurisdiction and has ventured to re-appreciate the evidence and recorded its own findings on percentage of disability for which also there is no basis."
10. As far as the question no. 1 is concerned, it can be said that it is in the realm of question of law. As far as question nos. 2 and 4 are concerned, they are in the realm of question of fact. As far as the question no. 5 is concerned, it is statutory provision under Section 4A of the Employees Compensation Act that the amount be paid with 12% rate of interest. The questions no. 1 to 5 are answered against the appellant and in favour of the respondent.
11. In view of the above, the appeal fails and is dismissed. The so called questions of law framed by the Insurance Company are answered against it. In fact the substantial questions of law raised into 2 to 4 are the questions of fact.
12. Interim relief, if any, shall stand vacated forthwith.
Order Date :- 6.7.2021
Mukesh
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER DEFECTIVE No. - 641 of 2005
Appellant :- United India Insurance Company Limited
Respondent :- Dilbag Singh And Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Arvind Kumar
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
(Ref: Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application)
Heard.
This is an application seeking condonation of delay in filing appeal.
Cause shown is sufficient.
The delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.
This application, accordingly, stands allowed.
Order Date :- 6.7.2021
Mukesh
