Allahabad High Court
New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Smt. Mamta Devi And Others on 9 February, 2023
Bench: Kaushal Jayendra Thaker
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 44
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1846 of 2005
Appellant :- New India Assurance Co Ltd
Respondent :- Smt. Mamta Devi And Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Nagendra Kr. Srivastava
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
1. This appeal preferred under Section 30 of Workmen's Compensation Act challenging the judgment and award dated 21.5.2005 passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner/Assistant Labour Commissioner, Bulandshahar in Case W.C.A. No. 31 of 2003 whereby the learned Commissioner has awarded compensation of Rs.4,15,960/- with interest at the rate of 6%.
2. The appellant has challenged the award of the learned Commissioner on the following substantial questions of law:
" i). Whether in the absence of documentary proof of the income, the Commissioner should have taken the minimum wages to calculate the just compensation ?
ii) Whether, in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of P.J. Narainan's case reported in 2004 ACJ Page No.452 S.C. there is no liability of the appellant insurance company to pay the interest ?
iii) Whether as at the time of accident the deceased were travelling in another vehicle which was not at all insured with the appellant insurance company thus no liability for payment of compensation can be imposed on the appellant insurance company ? "
3. 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."
4. 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."
5. As far as question of interest is concerned, it is against the statute as Section 4A of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 enjoins duty on the Commissioner to award 12% rate of interest on the default amount. Hence, the substantial question of law No. (4) is answered against the Insurance Company in view of the decision of the Apex Court inCivil Appeal No.7470 of 2009 North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs. Smt. Sujatha decided on 2.11.2018 & Oriental Insurance Company Vs. Siby George and Others, 2012 (4) T.A.C. 4 (S.C.).
6. As far as first three substantial questions of law which are framed by the appellant are concerned, they are questions of facts and the findings of the Commissioner on those issues are not perverse. In Golla Rajanna Etc. Etc. Vs. Divisional Manager and Another, 2017 (1) TAC 259 (SC) & Mayan vs. Mustafa and another, 2022 ACJ 524 also, the Apex Court has held that under Section 30 of Workmen Compensation Act, the High Court cannot enter into the arena of facts unless they are proved to be perverse and the Court cannot interfere unless there is a question of law involved. The decision in Salim vs. New India Assurance. Co. Ltd. and another, 2022 ACJ 526 also will not permit this Court to interfere with the well reasoned judgment of learned Commissioner.
7. In view of the above, the appeal fails and is dismissed. The show 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 Registry will forward this order to the Workmen Compensation Commissioner who shall immediately summon the claimants and disburse the amount kept in fixed deposit with interest accrued on the said amount till date within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, if the amount has not already been deposited.
Order Date :- 9.2.2023/Mukesh
