O.I.C. Ltd. vs Smt. Nasiban
2022 Latest Caselaw 4340 ALL

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 4340 ALL
Judgement Date : 26 May, 2022

Allahabad High Court

O.I.C. Ltd. vs Smt. Nasiban on 26 May, 2022

Bench: Kaushal Jayendra Thaker




HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 2
 

 
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1396 of 1993
 

 
Appellant :- O.I.C. Ltd.
 
Respondent :- Smt. Nasiban
 
Counsel for Appellant :- S.K. Kakkar
 

 
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.

1. By way of this appeal the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. has felt aggrieved by the order dated 31.5.1993 passed by IXth Additional District Judge/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bareilly, whereby interim relief under Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 has been awarded in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.228 of 1991.

2. The Apex Court recently in Golla Rajanna Etc. Etc. Vs. Divisional Manager and Another, 2017 (1) TAC 259 (SC) and this High Court in FAFO 1070 of 1993 (E.S.I.C. Vs. S. Prasad) decided on 26.10.2017 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."

3. The Apex Court in North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs. Smt. Sujatha, AIR 2018 SC 5593, has held that unless perversity is pointed out, the first appellate Court should not easily interfere with the findings of facts and percentage of disability is a question of fact. No perversity has been pointed out, hence no interference is called far.

4. In view of the above, this appeal sans merit and is dismissed. Interim relief, if any, shall stands vacated.

Order Date :- 26.5.2022

Deepak/Irshad