Rajasthan High Court

I C I C I Lombard Gen Insurance Co Ltd vs Smt Ram Devi And Others on 10 January, 2022

Bench: Anoop Kumar Dhand

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                     BENCH AT JAIPUR

            S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1387/2016

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., having its Registered
Office at ICICI Lombard House, 414 Veer Savarkar Marg, Near
Siddhi Vinayak Temple, Prabhadevi, Mumbai- 400025, and having
its Regional Offce at II Floor, Bhagwati Bhawan, above P.L.
Motors, Government Hostel Crossing, M.I. Road, Jaipur- through
its Constituent Attorney
                                                 ----Appellant-Non-claimant
                                    Versus
1. Smt. Ram Devi W/o Late Bhawarlal aged 36 years, R/o Village
Bajdoli, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Sikar (Raj.)
2.   Kumari Priyanka D/o Late Bhawarlal minor being represented
through natural guardian Mother Smt.Ram Devi W/o Late
Bhawarlal, R/o Village Bajdoli, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Sikar
(Raj.)
3. Kumari Anju D/o Late Bhawarlal minor being represented
through natural guardian Mother Smt.Ram Devi W/o Late
Bhawarlal, R/o Village Bajdoli, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Sikar
(Raj.)
4.   Amit S/o Late Bhawarlal minor being represented through
natural guardian Mother Smt.Ram Devi W/o Late Bhawarlal, R/o
Village Bajdoli, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Sikar (Raj.)
                                         -------- Claimants/Respondents

5. Ramdevaram S/o Shri Rekharam, R/o Village Tasar Badi, Tehsil and District Sikar.

(Registered owner Truck No. RJ-23-GA-1070)

----Non-claimant/Respondent Connected With S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2744/2016

1. Smt. Ram Devi W/o Late Bhanwarlal aged 36 years, R/o Village Bajdoli, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Sikar (Raj.)

2. Priyanka D/o Late Bhanwarlal, aged 16 years, minor being represented through Mother and natural guardian Smt.Ram Devi W/o Late Bhanwarlal, R/o Village Bajdoli, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Sikar (Raj.)

3. Anju D/o Late Bhanwarlal, aged 13 years, minor being represented through Mother and natural guardian Smt.Ram Devi

(2 of 6) [CMA-1387/2016]

W/o Late Bhanwarlal, R/o Village Bajdoli, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Sikar (Raj.)

4. Amit S/o Late Bhanwarlal, aged 09 years, minor being represented through Mother and natural guardian Smt. Ram Devi W/o Late Bhawarlal, R/o Village Bajdoli, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Sikar (Raj.)

----Claimants-Appellants Versus

1. Ramdeva Ram S/o Shri Rekharam, R/o Village Tasar Badi, Tehsil and District Sikar (Registered owner Truck No. RJ-23-GA- 1070)

2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., having its Registered Office at above P.L. Motors, Opposite Police Commissionerate, Government Hostel Crossing, M.I. Road, Jaipur- through its Regional Manager (Insurance Company Truck No. RJ-23-GA-1070)

----Respondent/Non-claimants

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Chanderdeep Singh Jodha through VC For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinay Mathur through VC

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Judgment

10/01/2022

Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award

dated 05.02.2016 passed by the Court of learned Commissioner

Workmen's Compensation, Sikar (Raj.) [for short 'the learned

Commissioner'] in Case No. WCCF 09/2012, both the Insurance

Company as well as the claimants have preferred the instant

appeals, hence the same are being decided by this common

judgment.

Brief facts of the case are that the claimants have filed a

claim petition under the provisions of Workmen's Compensation

Act, 1923 before the Court of Employees' Compensation

(3 of 6) [CMA-1387/2016]

Commissioner, Sikar claiming compensation on account of the

loss suffered by them due to death of Bhanwarlal who died in an

accident occurred on 13.10.2011. It was further stated in the

claim petition that the death of the deceased occurred in the

capacity of the driver during the course of employment of the non-

claimant Ramdevaram. It was also pleaded that at the time of

accident, the age of the deceased was 35 years and he was

earning Rs. 8,000/- per month.

The owner of the vehicle filed reply to the claim petition in

which the employment of the deceased was admitted. The

appellant-Insurance Company filed the reply to the claim petition

and denied the averments made in the claim petition.

After considering the documents available on record and

pleadings made by the respective parties, the learned

Compensation allowed the claim petition directing the Insurance

Company to pay a compensation of Rs. 6,52,280/- with interest to

the claimants. Feeling aggrieved by the same, both the Insurance

Company as well as the claimants have preferred the instant misc.

appeals.

The claimants have submitted the instant appeal for

enhancement of the award passed by the court below, while the

Insurance Company has submitted the instant appeal on the

ground that the vehicle was not involved in the accident and the

accident occurred when the deceased was crossing the railway

track.

Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the

deceased was not working under the employment of the

respondent No. 5-Ramdevaram. Hence, the Insurance Company is

not liable to pay the amount of compensation determined by the

(4 of 6) [CMA-1387/2016]

learned Commissioner. In support of his contentions, learned

counsel for the Insurance Company has placed reliance upon the

judgment delivered by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Shakuntala

Chandrakant Shreshthi vs. Prabhakar Maruti Garvall reported in

2007 ACJ 1 SC wherein it has been held that the finding of fact

can be adjudicated as substantial question of law.

The argument raised by the counsel for the Insurance

Company is that since the vehicle was not involved in the

accident, hence there was no question of employment of the

deceased with respondent No.5- Ramdevaram. No such

substantial question of law has been framed in the memo of

appeal and only arguments have been raised without framing such

question of law. While as per the mandate of Section 30 of the Act

of 2013, the appeal against the judgment and award of the

Workmen's Compensation Commissioner is maintainable only on

the question of law.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the

respondents-claimants opposed the arguments raised by the

counsel for the Insurance Company and stated that no substantial

question of law is involved in the instant case and recently the

Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken a view in the case of North East

Karnataka Transport Corporation vs. Sujatha reported in 2019

(11) SCC 514 in Para Nos. 9 and 10 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

(5 of 6) [CMA-1387/2016]

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 finding of fact."

I have heard counsel appearing for the respective parties

and perused the documents available on record.

The arguments raised by the counsel for the appellant are

regarding perverse findings recorded by the learned Commissioner

on the issues that the vehicle was not involved in the accident and

the deceased was not under the employment of the respondent

No.5 Ramdevaram.

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

the learned Commissioner are based on sound appreciation of

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

as no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. The

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Golla Rajanna and Ors. Vs.