I C I C I Lombard General Insu vs Chand Khan And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 677 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

          S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2553/2009

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., Having Its
Registered Office At ICICI Bank Tower, Bandra Kurla Complex,
Mumbai- 400051, Having Its Regional Office At Plot No. 9,
Makers Tower, Basant Bahar, Near Gopalpura Flyover, Tonk Road,
Jaipur- 302018 Through Its Constituent Attorney.
                                                ----Non-Claimant/Appellant
                                   Versus
1.      Chand Khan S/o Late Sh. De Baksh Khan, aged 67 years
2.      Smt. Soni W/o Sh. Chand Khan, age 60 years,
3.      Smt. Banu W/o Late Sh. Akbar Khan, Age 20 years,
        All R/o Vill. Rain Ka Jhopra, Thana Bhinay, Distt. Ajmer.
                                                  ----Claimant/Respondents

4. Smt. Dimpli Agarwal W/o Sh. Prahlad Agarwal, R/o D-75, Shanti Nagar, N.B.C. Road, Hasanpura, Jaipur. Registered (Owner Of Pick-Up No. RJ-14-2G-2769

----Non-Claimant/Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Virendra Agarwal with Mr. Santosh Kumar Soni through VC 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 13.01.2009 passed by the

Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Jaipur District-II, Jaipur

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

(2 of 3) [CMA-2553/2009]

established between deceased and Dimpli Agarwal. Learned

counsel submitted that the Commissioner has erred in assessing

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

(3 of 3) [CMA-2553/2009]

High Court from the order of Workmen Compensation

Commissioner only if it involves a substantial question of law.

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 /119

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)