Rajasthan High Court

Relaiance Gen Insurance Co Ltd vs Shyam Alias Jagdish And Another on 28 January, 2022

Bench: Anoop Kumar Dhand

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

            S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 301/2013

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., Kota, Having Its
Regional Office At Maker Tower Queens Road, Vaishali Nagar,
Jaipur Through Its Constituent Attorney
                                                                         ----Appellant
                                      Versus
1.     Shyam       @    Jagdish       S/o      Gopal      Lal,     R/o    Madupuriya
       Datunda, Post Basoli, Police Station Basoli, Distt. Bundi
2.     Shiv Lal S/o Ram Lal, R/o 79, Kesar Bag, Ramganj Mandi,
       Kota Presently R/o Sarawada, Teh. Ramganjmandi, Distt.
       Kota
                                                                   ----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Virendra Agarwal and Mr. Prakhar Agarwal, through VC

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Order

Reportable

28/01/2022

A challenge in the instant misc. appeal has been made to the

impugned judgment and award dated 05.12.2012 passed by the

Court of learned Commissioner Workmen's Compensation, Bundi,

Rajasthan (for short 'the learned Commissioner') in

WCC/F//51/2011 by which the claim petition filed by the claimant-

respondent has been allowed and the Insurance company has

been directed to pay compensation of Rs.3,96,165/- to the

claimant-respondent with interest.

Brief facts of the case are that the claimant-respondent filed

a claim petition under the provisions of Workmen's Compensation

(2 of 6) [CMA-301/2013]

Act, claiming compensation on account of death of one Kalulal who

died in the road accident occurred on 26.01.2008. It was also

stated in the claim petition that the death occurred during the

course of the employment. Hence, the claimant is entitled to get

compensation as the deceased was working as a 'Khalasi' and

drawing salary of Rs.4750/- per month.

The owner of the vehicle did not appear before the learned

Commissioner and hence, ex parte proceedings were initiated

against him but the appellant-Insurance Company has submitted

its reply and denied the averments made in the claim petition and

raised objection that there was no relationship of employee and

employer between the insured and the deceased and no notice

under Section 10 of the Act of 1923 was given. Hence, the claim

petition was not maintainable.

After hearing the parties, the learned Commissioner allowed

the claim petition directing the appellant to pay a compensation of

Rs.3,96,165/- with interest to the claimant-respondent.

Feeling aggrieved by the impugned award the appellant-

Insurance Company has preferred this appeal. Learned counsel for

the appellant submitted that the learned Commissioner has

committed an error while allowing the claim petition as the

claimant-respondent has failed to establish the relationship of

employee and employer. Hence, the provisions of the Act of 1923

were not attracted. Learned counsel further argued thgat there

was non compliance of the mandatory provisions contained under

Section 10 of the Act of 1923, hence, the Insurance Company is

not liable to make any payment of compensation to the claimant-

respondent.

(3 of 6) [CMA-301/2013]

Heard counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned

judgment and the documents available on record.

In the considered opinion of this Court, the findings given by

the learned Commissioner are based on sound appreciation of

evidence and the same is not liable to be disturbed by this Court.

In the opinion of this Court, the learned Commissioner is the

last authority on facts as it has been held by the Hon'ble Suprme

Court in the case of "Golla Rajanna Etc. vs. The Divisional

Manager And Anr." reported in 2017(1) SCC 45. It has been held

in Para No. 8 & 10 as under:

"8. Section 30 of the Act provides for appeal to the High Court. To the extent, the provision reads as follows;

30. Appeals.-(1) An appeal shall lie to the High Courtfrom the following orders of a Commissioner, namely:

(a) an order awarding as compensation a lump sum whether by way of redemption of a half- monthly payment or otherwise or disallowing a claim in full or in part for a lump sum; [(aa) an order awarding interest or penalty Under Section 4A;]

(b) an order refusing to allow redemption of a half-monthly payment;

(c) an order providing for the distribution of compensation among the dependants of a deceased workman, or disallowing any claim of a person alleging himself dto be such dependant;

(d) an order allowing or disallowing any claim for the amount of an indemnity under the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 12;

or

(e) an order refusing to register a memorandum of agreement or registering the same or providing for the registration of the same subject to conditions:

Provided that no appeal shall lie against any order unless a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal and in the case of an order other than an order such as is referred to in Clause (b), unless the amount in dispute in teh appeal is not less than three hundred rupees (Emphasis supplied)

10. Under the schment of the Act, the workmen's Compensation Commissioner is the last authority on facts. The Parliament has thought it fit to

(4 of 6) [CMA-301/2013]

restrict the scope of the appeal only to substantial question 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."

The similar view has been expressed by the Hon'ble Apex

Court in the case of "North East Karnatka Transport Corporation

Vs. Smt. Sujatha" reported in 2019 (11) SCC 514. It has

specifically held in Para Nos. 9 to 12 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 dependants 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 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 the findings of fact.

11. The appeal provided under Section 30 of the Act to the High Court against the order of the Commissioner lies only against the specific orders set out in clauses (a) to (e) of Section 30 of the Act with a further rider contained in the first proviso to the section that the appeal must involve substantial questions of law.

12. In other words, the appeal provided under Section 30 of the Act to the High Court against the order of the Commissioner is not like a regular first

(5 of 6) [CMA-301/2013]

appeal akin to Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which can he heard both on facts and law. The appellate jurisdiction of the High Court to decide the appeal is confined only to examine the substantial questions of law arising in the case."

In "Smt. Ram Sakhi Devi Vs. Chhatra Devi", reported in JT

2005(6) SC 167, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that without

formulating substantial question of law appeal cannot be

sustained.

In "M/s Krishna Weaving Mills, Ajmer Vs. Smt. Chandra

Bhaga Devi wide of Mool Chand & Anr.", reported in 1985(1) WLN

455, this Court while dealing with Workmen's Compensation Act

has laid down law that unless there is as question of public

importance and there is no final interpretation available while the

substantial question of law is arising, the appeal under the

Workmen's Compensation Act cannot be entertained. Relevant

portion of the judgment reads as follows:-

"8. Moreover, under S. 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act only substantial question of law can be agitated. In the present case, I am convinced that there is no substantial question of law involved.

9. The question of public importance and question on which no final interpretation is available are known as substantial question of law. Even if this definition is further extended, it will have to bear in mind that there is vast difference between the question of law and substantial question of law. It is only when the question of law is not well settled and it is of importance, it would become a substantial questions of law."

It is the settled position of law that limited jurisdiction has

been given to the High Court confined to the substantial question

of law only and the High Court cannot venture and reappreciate

the evidence and finding of fact recorded on the evidence led by

both the parties.

(6 of 6) [CMA-301/2013]

This Court 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. This Court accordingly uphold these

findings.

Since the appeal is not qualifying to have a substantial