Rajasthan High Court
New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Norag Lal And Ors on 22 January, 2021
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3373/2008
The New India Assurance Company Limited through its Branch
Office, Court Road, Sikar and its Regional Office, 330000, 2 nd
Floor, Nehru Complex, Tonk Road, Jaipur.
----Non Claimant-Appellant
Versus
1.Norang Lal son of Shri Jhuntha Ram.
2.Sharawani Devi wife of Shri Norang Lal.
resident of village Gungara, Tehsil and District Sikar.
----Claimant-Respondent
3.Mahaveer Prasad son of Shri Chhotu Singh, resident of
Palsana, Tehsil Dantaramgarh, District Sikar at present resident
of Plot No.164, Road No.11, Vishwakaram Industrial Area, Jaipur.
----Non-Claimant-Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. V.S. Yadav
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinay Mathur
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Order
22/01/2021
This appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company, non-
claimant against the judgment dated 04.06.2008 passed by the
Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Sikar whereby the claim
petition filed by the respondents/claimants was allowed in part.
Assailing the judgment, learned counsel for the appellant
contended that relationship of employer and employee was not
established between Mahaveer Prasad and Deendayal. He further
submitted that the insurance company was not liable to indemnify
the insured in absence of driving licence with the driver. Learned
counsel submitted that the Commissioner has erred in assessing
(2 of 3) [CMA-3373/2008]
the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 4,000/- in absence of
any evidence in this regard.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 and 2
submitted that no substantial question of law arises in this appeal
and hence, the same is not maintainable. Relying on the
judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court of India in cases of North East
Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs. Sujatha: Civil
Appeal No.7470/2009, decided on 02.11.2018 and Golla
Rajanna Vs. The Divisional Manager and Anr.: 2017 (1) SCC
45, learned counsel submitted that now it is well settled law that
Court of Workmen Compensation Commissioner is final authority
so far as finding of fact is concerned and this Court should not
interfere with such finding unless suffers from perversity. He,
therefore, prayed that the appeal be dismissed.
Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the
record.
The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the
appellant pertain to factual dispute. On examining the findings
recorded by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner in the
light of material available on record, this Court finds that the same
do not suffer from any perversity. As per the decisions of Hon'ble
Apex Court of India in cases of North East Karanataka Road
Transport Corporation (supra) and Golla Rajanna (supra),
Court of Workmen Compensation Commissioner is final authority
qua finding of fact. Even otherwise also, in terms of Section 30 of
the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, an appeal lies to the
High Court from the order of Workmen Compensation
Commissioner only if it involves a substantial question of law.
(3 of 3) [CMA-3373/2008]
Since, the appeal does not involve any substantial question of law,
the same deserves to be dismissed.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed being devoid of merit.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
MADAN MEENA /108
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
