Rajasthan High Court
United India Insurance Co Ltd vs Smt Kamlesh And Ors on 12 January, 2022
Bench: Anoop Kumar Dhand
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4464/2008
United India Insurance Company, Regional Office, Sahara
Chambers, Tonk Road, Jaipur Rajasthan, Through Mrs. Alka
Singhal, Deputy Manager.
----Appellant/Non-Claimant
Versus
1. Smt. Kamlesh W/o Late Shri Churamani, aged about 22
years, R/o Village Bagcholi Khar, Police Station Mania
District Dholpur Rajasthan.
2. Rohit Aged 2 Months Minor S/o Late Shri Churamani,
Through Mother Kamlesh W/o Late Shri Churamani, R/o
Village Bagcholi Khar, Police Station Mania District Dholpur
Rajasthan.
3. Smt. Laxmi Devi Alias Laccho W/o Shri Bhuri Singh, aged
about 45 years, R/o Village Bagcholi Khar, Police Station
Mania District Dholpur Rajasthan.
4. Bhuri Singh S/o Shri Sumer Singh, R/o Village Bagcholi
Khar, Police Station Mania District Dholpur Rajasthan.
-------Claimants/Respondents
5. Bunti Singh S/o Shri Parmal Singh, R/o Village Piprai,
Police Station Sarai Chhola, District Muraina M.P. (Owner
Of The Truck No. MP-06/E 4721)
----Respondent/Non-Claimant
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajpal Chaudhary through VC
For Respondent(s) : Mr. D.K. Garg through VC
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Judgment
12/01/2022
The instant civil misc. appeal has been filed by the
appellant-Insurance Company under Section 30 (a) of the
(2 of 4) [CMA-4464/2008]
Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 [for short 'the Act of 1923]
claiming the following reliefs:
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed
that your Lordships may graciously be pleased to
admit and allow this appeal and call for the record
of Claim Case No. WC/F/35/2006 (Kamlesh Vs.
United Indian Insurance Company) from the
Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Dholpur
and further be pleased to quash and set-aside the
impugned award dated 25.07.2008 against the
appellant-Insurance Company with cost
throughout.
Any other appropriate order or direction,
which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and
proper, be passed in the interest of justice and to
grant adequate relief to the humble appellant-
Insurance Company."
At the outset, learned counsel for the respondents has
placed reliance upon the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of North East Karnataka Road Transport
Corporation Vs. Smt. Sujatha, reported in 2019 (11) SCC 514,
wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the appeal filed by
the appellant-Insurance Company is liable to be dismissed if no
substantial question of law is involved therein. The Hon'ble Apex
Court has held 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 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
(3 of 4) [CMA-4464/2008]
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."
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance
Company submits that the workman/labour was not covered
under the policy, hence, Insurance company is not liable to make
the payment of compensation to the claimants.
I have heard the counsel appearing for the respective
parties, scanned and scrutinized the entire material made
available to the Court.
In Para 9 of the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of North East Karnataka Road Transport
Corporation (supra), it has been specifically held by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court that the question as to whether there was any
coverage obtained by the employer to cover the incident or the
labour/workman is a question of fact which has already been
adjudicated by the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation.
The aforementioned objection taken by the learned
counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company is
essentially a question of fact and that has already been proved
with the aid of evidence by claimants-respondents before the
Commissioner. Once findings have been recorded, then these
findings are treated as the findings of fact which cannot be
interfered within the scope or ambit of Section 30 of the Act of
(4 of 4) [CMA-4464/2008]
1923 as it is the mandate of the proviso attached to Section 30 of
the Act of 1923 that an appeal would lie to the High Court purely
on the basis of substantial question of law.
Since appeal is not qualifying to have a substantial
question of law which is mandatory under Section 30 of the Act of
1923, the objections regarding the policy not having
comprehensive coverage has rightly been decided by the learned
Commissioner. Therefore, no interference is called for in the
present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.
All the pending applications, if any, also stand
dismissed.
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J
Ritu/2
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
