Allahabad High Court
Oriental Insurance Company ... vs Virendra Singh And Others on 22 May, 2023
Bench: Kaushal Jayendra Thaker
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:112965
Court No. - 44
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2707 of 2005
Appellant :- Oriental Insurance Company Limited
Respondent :- Virendra Singh And Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Nagendra Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
2. By way of this appeal, Oriental Insurance Company has challenged the judgment and award dated 16.09.2005 passed by Workmen's Compensation Commissioner/Assistant Labour Commissioner, Meerut in Workmen Compensation Case No.119 of 2002 awarding compensation of Rs.1,97,712/-with interest at the rate of 12%.
3. On perusal of memo of appeal, this Court finds that following substantial questions of law have been framed by the appellant:
"(a) Whether the present Workmen Compensation Case of the claimant is not maintainable in view of the provision of Section 167 of Motor Vehicles Act as the claimant has already chosen his option for the claim petition (Virendra Singh vs. Suresh Singh and others) before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Meerut. ?
(b) Whether the present claim petition is not maintainable as the claimant stated different version in respect of his employment in the present claim case than the version mentioned in the previous claim petition for the same cause of action?
(c) Whether in view of the law of Hon'ble Supreme Court of P.J. Narainan's Case reported in 2004 ACJ page No.424 there is no liability of the appellant Insurance Company to pay interest on the awarded amount even then the Workmen compensation Commissioner illegally imposed the liability for payment of interest on the appellant Insurance Company ?
(d) Whether nowadays the maximum rate of interest is being granted even in the fixed deposit @ 5.5% byy the Nationalize Banks but the Workmen Compensatiob Commissioner illegally awarded the interest @12% per annum ?
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.
5. 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."
6. 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."
7. 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."
8. As far as present appeal is concerned, the so called substantial questions of law framed are questions of facts and the findings of the Commissioner on the said issues are not perverse. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Case (Supra) and Golla Rajanna Etc. Etc. Vs. Divisional Manager and Another, 2017 (1) TAC 259 (SC) where also it has been held that under Section 30 of the E.C. Act, 1923, the High Court cannot enter into the arena of facts unless they are proved to be perverse.
9. A recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mayan Vs. Mustafa and another, 2022 ACJ 524 also holds that the Court cannot interfere unless there is a question of law involved. In our case the injury was during the course of employment. The percentage of injury was decided by the Commissioner. The judgment of Apex Court in Salim Versus New India Assurance Co.Ltd. and another, 2022 ACJ 526 will also not permit this Court to interfere in the well reasoned judgment of the Commissioner.
10. This Court is even fortified in its view in Shahajahan and another Versus M/s Shri Ram Gen. Insurance Company Ltd. and another, 2021(4) T.A.C. 687 ( S.C.) as it is proved that the claimant was employee of the employer and was engaged as a driver.
11. In that view of the matter this 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.
12. Interim relief shall stand vacated forthwith. The Registry will forward this order to the W.C. 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 today.
Order Date :- 22.5.2023
A.N. Mishra
