Allahabad High Court
National Insurance Co Ltd vs Smt. Kela Devi And Others on 9 December, 2022
Bench: Kaushal Jayendra Thaker
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 44
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 3475 of 2004
Appellant :- National Insurance Co Ltd
Respondent :- Smt. Kela Devi And Others
Counsel for Appellant :- A.C. Nigam
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
2. By way of this appeal, National Insurance Co. Ltd. has challenged the judgment and award dated 12.10.2004 passed by Workmen's Compensation Commissioner/Deputy Labour Commissioner Agra, Region Agra in Workmen Compensation Case No. 113 of 2002 awarding compensation of Rs. 2,27,738/- with interest at the rate of 12%.
3. On perusal memo of appeal, this Court finds that following substantial questions of law has been framed:
" (i) Whether the driver of the truck in question was having valid and effective llicense at the time of accident?
(ii) Whether the learned court below considered the driving licence report of R.T.O. Etah and certified copy of register of D.T.O Kota, having entry of original licence no. 12938/Kota Raj/97, which was found to be issued in the name of Ram Nath son of Lakhanji and not in the name of driver Ram Nath Son of Sri Ram?
(iii) Whether the court below was right in passing the award against the appellant company without framing the issues and without considering the application moved by the appellant company for framing the issues?
(iv) Whether the court below was right in holding that the driver of the truck Ram Nath son of Sri Ram was having valid driving licence (No. 1603/Etah) in view of the fact that the original driving licence No. 12938/ Kota issued on 17.1.1974 and at that time the age of the driver Ram Nath Son of Sri Ram was about 3 years on the basis of his date of birth shown in the driving licence as 17.1.1997?
(v) Whether the court below was right in deciding the case ignoring the documentary evidence on record filed by the appellant company?
(vi) Whether the vehicle in question was driven by driver who was having a fake driving licence?
(vii) Whether the risk of the cleaner of the truck in questions was insured under the policy in question?
(viii) Whether the cleaner falls within the category of Workmen, under the Workmen's Compensation Act?
(ix) Whether the relationship of employer and employee was existing between the deceased and the truck owner?"
4. At the outset, it is relevant to discuss the scope of this Court to entertain appeal against the award of Workmen's Compensation Commissioner. The Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.7470 of 2009 North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs. Smt. Sujatha decided on 2.11.2018 has held 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 dependents of the deceased 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 findings of fact."
5. The Apex Court further went on to hold 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."
6. As far as present appeal is concerned, the so called substantial questions of law framed are the questions of facts and the findings of the Commissioner on the said issues are not perverse. As far as question (d) namely of interest is concerned, the same is answered against the Insurance Company in view of the decision of the Apex Court in North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Case (Supra). In Golla Rajanna Etc. Etc. Vs. Divisional Manager and Another, 2017 (1) TAC 259 (SC) also it has been held that under Section 30, the High Court cannot enter into the arena of facts unless they are proved to be perverse.
7. 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 are the questions of fact.
8. Interim relief, if any, shall stand vacated forthwith. The amount be disbursed to the claimant forthwith.
Order Date :- 9.12.2022
PS
