Allahabad High Court
National Insurance Co.Ltd. vs Bharat Singh And Others on 2 March, 2023
Bench: Kaushal Jayendra Thaker
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Reserved on : 25.01.2023
Delivered on : 02.03.2023
Court No. - 44
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 988 of 1995
Appellant :- National Insurance Co.Ltd.
Respondent :- Bharat Singh And Others
Counsel for Appellant :- K.S.Amist
Counsel for Respondent :- G.N. Verma,A.K. Mishra,H.M.B. Sinha,Saleem,U.K. Mishra
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
2. By way of this appeal, National Insurance Company Ltd. has challenged the judgment and award dated 30.08.1995 passed by Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Kanpur Region, Kanpur in WC Case No. 63 of 1994 awarding compensation of 73,668/-with interest at the rate of 12% to the claimants.
3. The facts go to show that the vehicle no. U.P. 35/7986 was admittedly insured with the appellant. In the name of the deceased Shayam Bihari and the certificate also continued in the name of the deceased Shayam Bihari. The appellant contends that the deceased being the owner of the vehicle as legal heirs could not have claimed under Workmen's Compensation Act. Having chosen to file claim petition under the said Act. The said matter was required to be dismissed.
4. In the light of the fact that the vehicle was not transferred to any respondent. The vehicle was owned by the deceased. It is further submitted that the claimants had claimed that insurance vehicle to his name and therefore, claimed what was known as for loss of vehicle and, thereafter, have been claimed that the deceased was an emloyee has yet sold the vehicle. Registration, ownership and insurance continued in the name of deceased is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant and therefore, no claim petition was maintainable. The claimant thereafter, during the pendency of the petition claimed that the vehicle was transferred to third party. They were entitled to the damages from the owner namely Suresh Kumar was the son of Jagannath Prashad and this fact has been considered by the Commissioner.
5. Having gone through the record and proceedings the vehicle being sold is brought on record, but the vehicle still continue in the name of Shayam Bihari. No notice was given to the Insurance Company. This is a finding of fact which is perverse and, therefore, this appeal will have to be allowed.
6. This appeal is allowed. However, looking to meagreness of amount would be recovered after 14 years from the destitute lady. Appeal is partly allowed.
7. The amount of compensation awarded is very high and exorbitant and the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner has not followed correct rules in calculating the amount of compensation.
8. Salary of the deceased as Rs. 1000/- per month fixed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner is very high and exorbitant.
9. The appellant insurance company is not liable to pay any interest and penalty under Section 4A of the Workmen's Compensation Act and the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner has illegally imposed interest and penalty on the appellant.
10. Record sent back to the authorities below.
11. Hence, this appeal is allowed.
12. 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."
13. 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."
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. Interim relief, if any, shall stand vacated forthwith. The amount be disbursed to the claimant forthwith.
Order Date :- 02.03.2023
Imtiyaz
