Allahabad High Court
U.P. State Road Transport ... vs Raju on 21 October, 2022
Bench: Kaushal Jayendra Thaker
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Reserved
Court No. - 44
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1297 of 2000
Appellant :- U.P. State Road Transport Corporation
Respondent :- Raju
Counsel for Appellant :- Samir Sharma,Sunil Kumar Misra
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
1. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Misra, learned counsel for the appellant- UPSRTC.
2. This appeal, at the behest of the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, challenges the judgment and order dated 13.7.2000 passed by Workmen Compensation Commissioner / Assistant Labour Commissioner, Bulandshahr in WC Case No.17 of 1998.
3. Brief facts are that the original claimant respondent who is the driver with the appellant met with an accident which caused him injury. He was as such deputed with the corporation and, therefore the corporation was not liable to pay any compensation. It is further alleged that the accident occurred at Hathras and the claim petition filed at Bulandsahar was not maintainable.
4. It is further submitted that the accident did not cause any loss of income as he had been given alternative job.
5. he accident occurred causing injuries to the employee whose pay was Rs.1090/- per month. The injuries which were caused entitled him to claim compensation as he was 35 years of age and his injuries were 90% which means that he could never drive a vehicle. The minimum amount has been granted by the Tribunal.
6. In the appeal it is alleged that the driver of the bus was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed with the tree.
7. 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). The finding of fact is that the injured was an employee who had sustained employment injury and was incapacitated to the tune of 90% which incapacitated him.
8. This is a finding of fact and while deciding claim petition the fact hat there is loss which has been considered by the commissioner below goes to show that he has lost the capacity to drive the vehicle . The doctor also has opined that the disablement is incapacitated the respondent. From doing the work of driver, which he was doing.
9. I am fortified in my view by the recent judgment of Apex Court reported in Arjun Vs. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, 2022(3) T.A.C. 4 (S.C). I am also 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 it has been held that 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."
10. 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."
11. The submission of the counsel for the appellant that the matter was not cognizable by the Commissioner, the said submission is rejected in view of the judgment of Apex Court in Mayan Vs. Mustafa and Another, 2022(3) T.A.C. 375 SC.
12. In view of the above, the appeal fails and is dismissed. The so called questions of law framed by the appellant are answered against it. In fact the substantial questions of law raised are the questions of fact.
13. Interim relief, if any, shall stand vacated forthwith. The amount be disbursed to the claimant forthwith if yet not disbursed.
Order Date :- 21.10.2022
Mukesh
