Rajasthan High Court
United India Insurance Co Ltd vs Smt Kesari Devi And Others on 27 October, 2021
Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
(1 of 3) [CMA-3117/2015]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.3117/2015
United India Insurance Company Ltd., Jaipur Road, Devipura,
Sikar Through Manager TP Claim Hub, 93, Sapphire Center,
Ajmer Road, Jaipur Insurance Company Vehicle Jeep No. RJ-18-
UA-0233
----Appellant
Versus
1. Smt. Kesari Devi W/o Late Shri Bansidhar Meena, age 58
years R/o Village Gurara, Tehsil Khandela, District Sikar
Raj.
2. Rohitash S/o Shri Prahlad Ray, R/o Village Sultana, Tehsil
Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu Raj. Registered Owner Jeep
No. RJ 18 UA-0233
3. Gopalram S/o Shri Mohanlal Gurjar, R/o Village Sewali
Tehsil Khandela, District Sikar Power Of Attorney Holder
Vehicle Jeep No. RJ 18 UA-0233
----Respondents
connected with
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.3652/2015
Keshari Devi W/o Late Shri Bansidhar Meena, aged 58 years,
Resident of Village Gurara, Tehsil Khandela, District Sikar
----Appellant
Versus
1. Rohitash S/o Prahlad Rai, R/o Village Sultana, Tehsil
Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu. (Employer cum Registered
owner)
2. Gopalram S/o Mohan Lal Gurjar, R/o Village Sewali Tehsil
Khandela, District Sikar (Employer Cum Power Of Attorney)
3. United India Insurance Company Limited, Division Office at
Devipura, Sikar having its regional office at Vishal Chambers
Tonk Road, Jaipur through its Regional Manager (Insurer).
----Respondent
(2 of 3) [CMA-3117/2015]
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Amarnath Pareek
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinay Mathur
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
Order
27/10/2021
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3117/2015:-
Admittedly, the present appeal has been filed by the
insurance company on the question of quantum.
In case of Golla Rajanna and Others Versus Divisional
Manager & Another reported in (2017) 1 SCC 45, the Apex
Court has observed as under:-
"10. 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."
In another case of North East Karnataka Road Transport
Corporation Vs. 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,
(3 of 3) [CMA-3117/2015]
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."
In view of the judgments passed by the Apex Court in both
the aforesaid cases, the appeal would lie only on question of law
and the said question as raised by the learned counsel in the
present appeal cannot be said to be pure question of law.
In view thereof, the present appeal is dismissed as there is
no substantial question of law involved.
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3652/2015:-
Learned counsel for the appellant/s does not press the
present appeal.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed as not pressed.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J
Karan/65 & 76
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
