Allahabad High Court
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Smt. Satesh And Another on 6 January, 2023
Bench: Kaushal Jayendra Thaker
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 44
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 838 of 2002
Appellant :- United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Respondent :- Smt. Satesh And Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Nagendra Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- Ram Singh Kushwaha,Pankaj Misra
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
2. By way of this appeal, United India Insurance Company has challenged the judgment and award dated 26.3.2002 passed by Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Meerut in Case No.WCA 48 of 2000 awarding compensation of Rs. 2,09,920 with interest at the rate of 12% to the widow of the deceased.
3. On perusal memo of appeal, this Court finds that following substantial questions of law has been framed:
"(a) Whether the claim petition of the claimant is not maintainable as the dead body of the deceased Brijpal was not found, nor any post mortem report was filed?
(b) Whether no presumption can be drawn for the death of the alleged deceased Brijpal under Section 107 and 108 of the Evidence Act.?
(c) Whether 'in case, the murder committed by the owner of insured truck driver himself no liability can be imposed for payment of compensation on the appellant insurance Company.?
(d) Whether the death of the deceased did not sustained in the course of employment?
(e) Whether the finding of the Commissioner is totally contrary to the pleadings and evidence on record?
(f) Whether the commissioner had no jurisdiction to pass an award except in the event of insolvency of insured?
(g) Whether no award can be passed against the Insurance Company in the absence of an award against the Insured?
(h) Whether the rate of interest awarded by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner is highly excessive and against the law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in addition of Khushnuma Begum 2001(Vol-I) TAC page 644.?
(i) Whether the findings of the court below are based on surmises and conjectures and mis-interpretation of facts and law?"
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 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 :- 6.1.2023
PS
