Rajasthan High Court

United India Insurance Co Ltd vs Vidhyadhar 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. 4786/2015

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Divisional Office, Jaipur Road
Devipura, Sikar, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District-Sikar.
                                                                      ----Appellant
                                    Versus
1. Vidhyadhar son of Sh. Kumbharam, resident of Village Disnau,
Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Sikar (Raj.)
                                                     ----Respondent-claimant

2. Hardayal Singh son of Bhagirath Singh Dhaka, resident of Village Disnau, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Sikar (Raj.) (Owner of vehicle No.RJ-23/RB1408)

----Respondent-non-claimant

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajeev Bhushan Bansal, through VC For Respondent(s) : Mr. Naveen Dhuwan, through VC

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Order

28/01/2022

A challenge in the instant misc. appeal has been made

to the impugned judgment and award dated 29.09.2015 passed

by the Court of learned Commissioner Workmen's Compensation,

Sikar, Rajasthan (for short 'the learned Commissioner') in

WCC/NF/11/2013 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. 4,04,109/-

to the claimant-respondent with interest.

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

a claim petition before the Workmen's Compensation

Commissioner, Sikar by saying that he was working as a helper for

(2 of 7) [CMA-4786/2015]

agriculture purpose on chaff cutter machine attached with a

tractor bearing No.RJ-23-RB-1408 which belong to the

owner/respondent No.2. It was also mentioned in the claim

petiton that the claimant was working under the employment of

respondent No.2 and during the course of that employment he

sustained injury and his hand was imputed.

The appellant-Insurance Company submitted its reply and

denied the averments made in the claim petition and disputed the

relationship of employee and employer with the insured.

After hearing both sides, the learned Commissioner allowed

the claim petition by directing the appellant-Insurance Company

to pay compensation of Rs.4,04,109/- with interest to the

claimant-respondent.

Feeling aggrieved by the impugned award, this appeal has

been submitted by the insurance company. Learned counsel for

the appellant submitted that the injured was working in his own

field, hence, there was no relationship of employee and employer

between the injured and the owner of the vehicle.

Learned counsel further submits that thresher is not a part of

tractor under the Motor Vehicles Act and no premium was taken

for the thresher. Hence, the insurance-company is not liable to

make any amount of compensation to the injured claimant.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the claimant-

respondent opposed the arguments raised gby the appellant.

Learned counsel submitted that it is the settled position of law

that thresher is a part of tractor and no separate registration and

no separate premium is required to be paid under the Motor

Vehicles Act for the purpose of insuranace as the vehicle in

question was fully insured.

(3 of 7) [CMA-4786/2015]

In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the

judgment passed by this Court in "Smt. Babi & Ors. Vs. Laxman

& Ors." in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.91/2001 decided on

27.04.2013 and "Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Hanuman

Singh & Anr." in Civil Misc. Appeal No.5500/2009 decided on

25.11.2019 wherein it has been held that the thresher is attached

to the tractor. Hence, the same falls under the purview of motor

vehicles and no separate insurance and no separate premium is

required to be paid for that purpose.

Lastly, learned counsel argued that there is relationship of

employee and employer between the injured and the owner of the

vehicle and finding of fact has already been recorded by the

learned Commissioner while passing the award.

Learned counsel further submitted that the appeal under

Section 30 of the Act of 1923, is maintainable only on the basis of

substantial question of law and the arguments raised by the

counsel for the appellant are purely based on the finding of fact

which cannot be reagitated by way of filing this appeal.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

doucments 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:

(4 of 7) [CMA-4786/2015]

"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;

(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 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:

(5 of 7) [CMA-4786/2015]

"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 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

(6 of 7) [CMA-4786/2015]

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.

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

question of law, which is mandatory under Section 30 of the