Rajasthan High Court
Natioanl Insurance Co Ltd vs Durga Lal And Others on 21 October, 2021
Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1580/2012
The National Insurance Company Ltd., Jeevan Nidhi Iind Floor,
Ambedkar Circle, Bhawani Singh Road, Jaipur.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Durga Lal S/o Bhoora Lal, R/o Kalanada, Tehsil Nainwa,
Distt. Bundi.
2. Shanti Bai W/o Durga Lal, R/o Kalanada, Tehsil Nainwa,
Distt. Bundi.
3. Janki Das S/o Mohan Das, R/o Gram Jalodi, Tehsil And
Distt. Bundi Owner Of Vehicle
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. R P Vijay
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh for Mr.
Hridayesh Singh
Mr. Sandeep Mathur with Mr. Kapil
Sharma
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
Order
21/10/2021
1. The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 13 of
the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 against the judgment and
award dated 15.02.2012 passed by the Commissioner whereby a
claim amount of Rs.4,48,000/- has been awarded to the
respondent Nos.1 and 2.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the fact
regarding the employer-employee relationship was wrongly held to
be proved and there was no evidence to show that deceased were
actually employees of owner of the truck. The appeallant has
assailed the award on the ground that the provisions of Act would
(2 of 4) [CMA-1580/2012]
therefore have no application and the claim petition by the non-
appellants under the Employee Compensation Act, 1923 cannot be
said to be maintainable as the employer-employee relationship
shall not be proved.
3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the claimants
submits that the issue whether the passengers were employees of
the employer-owner of the truck is a pure question of fact which
cannot be gone into an appeal preferred by the Insurance
Company.
4. Learned counsel has relied on the judgment passed in Golla
Rajanna Etc. Etc. Versus Divisional Manager & Anr.
reported in 2017 (1) TAC 256 (S.C.), to submit that the Court
of appeal under section 13(1) is only limited to substantial
question of law and submits that no substantial question of law
cannot be said to be made out in the present appeal.
5. I have considered the submissions.
6. In case of Golla Rajanna (supra) the Apex Court has
observed as under:-
"8. Under the scheme of the Act, the Workmen's
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. The
whole exercise made by the High Court is not within
the competence of the High Court under Section 30 of
the Act."
(3 of 4) [CMA-1580/2012]
7. In another case of North East Karnataka Road Transport
Corporation Vs. Smt. Sujatha reported in (2019) 11 SCC
514, the Supreme Court has observed 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, the extent of disability caused to the
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 afore-mentioned 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 the findings of fact."
8. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company has
raised before this Court a question regarding the finding of fact of
employer-employee relationship arrived at by the Commissioner.
9. Keeping in view above, the said question being pure question
of fact, cannot be examined in an appeal and substantial question
of law cannot be said to be made out from the said argument.
(4 of 4) [CMA-1580/2012]
10. Learned counsel has also raised objections regarding the
breach of policy condition, however, once a finding of fact has
come on record regarding the employer-employee relationship
between deceased and owner of the truck, the provisions of the
Employees Compensation Act, 1923 would apply thereto and
therefore there is no jurisdictional error.
11. Accordingly, the submission of the learned counsel for the
appellant cannot be examined within the scope of appeal and this
Court is satisfied that there is no substantial question of law
involved. Therefore, appeal under Section 13(1) would not be
sustainable.
12. Accordingly, the civil misc. appeal is dismissed.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J
NITIN /18
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
