Allahabad High Court
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Mamta Devi And Others on 16 March, 2023
Bench: Kaushal Jayendra Thaker
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 44
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1002 of 2003
Appellant :- Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Respondent :- Mamta Devi And Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Anand Kumar Sinha
Counsel for Respondent :- M.A. Siddiqui,Mohd. Naushad Siddiui
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
By way of this appeal, Oriental Insurance Company/appellant has challenged the judgment and award dated 20.2.2003 passed by Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Kanpur Region Kanpur in Case No.WCA 108 of 2002 awarding compensation of Rs. 1,93,752/- with interest at the rate of 12% to the respondents.
On perusal memo of appeal, this Court finds that following substantial questions of law has been framed:
"(a) Whether the claim petition before the Commissioner Kanpur Region Kanpur was maintainable while the accident was occurred in the State of Gujrat and the owenr and his office was situated at Delhi?
(b) Whether the case was covered under Section 3 of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, and if not, whether the Appellant Company, being the indemnifier only, is liable to pay any compensation?
(c) Whether 'hit and run' case can be treated to be an accident during the course of employment or in other words, was there any nexus between the cause of death and employment so as to attract the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923?
(d) Whether the Court below could have granted interest at the rate of [email protected] that too from the date of incident."
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."
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."
The objection regarding the jurisdiction was never raised before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner is the submission of learned counsel for the appellant and therefore, it is submitted that under Section 30 of Workmen's Compensation Act, this Court will not go into the said aspect.
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 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.
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.
Interim relief, if any, shall stand vacated forthwith. The amount be disbursed to the claimant forthwith.
Order Date :- 16.3.2023
P.S.Parihar
