The National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Smt Mohini Devi And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 262 Raj/2

             HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                         BENCH AT JAIPUR

               S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 615/2007

    The National Insurance Co. Ltd, through its Regional Manager,
    Jaipur
                                                       ----Appellant/Respondent

Versus

1. Smt Mohini Devi W/o Late Shri Gopi Ram, aged 40 years, R/o Village Rajalia Tehsil Nava, District Nagaur

2. Miss Kamla D/o Late Gopi Ram, aged 10 years, through their natural Guardian and mother Smt. Bhuri, R/o Village Rajalia Tehsil Nava, District Nagaur

3. Richpal S/o Late Gopi Ram, aged 15 years, through their natural Guardian and mother Smt. Bhuri, R/o Village Rajalia Tehsil Nava, District Nagaur

4. Raju S/o Late Gopi Ram, aged 17 years, through their natural Guardian and mother Smt. Bhuri, R/o Village Rajalia Tehsil Nava, District Nagaur

5. Dalu W/o Late Shri Hukma Ram, aged 65 years, R/o Village Rajalia Tehsil Nava, District Nagaur

---------Claimants/Respondents

6. Mangal Chand S/o Shri Shyolal Alia Shyonath, R/o 7, Vijaypath, Murlipura Scheme, Jaipur presently R/o Ward No.4, Jalpadi Road, Shrimadhopur, Distt. Sikar-owner

----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ram Singh Bhati through VC For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bhanu Prakash Verma through VC

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Judgment

12/01/2022 Reportable:

The present civil misc. appeal is directed against the

judgment and award dated 01.11.2006 passed by the Court of

Learned Commissioner Workmen's Compensation, District Jaipur,

Jaipur [for short 'the learned Commissioner'] in Case No. W.C.C.F.

(2 of 6) [CMA-615/2007]

4/04, by which the claim petition filed by the claimants-

respondents has been allowed and the appellant-Insurance

Company was directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 3,38,880/-

with interest @ 12% per annum.

The issue involved in this appeal is that "whether appeal

under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 is

maintainable without framing any substantial question of law?"

Brief facts of this case are that one Gopiram was employed

with respondent No.6- Mangal Chand while he was working as a

cleaner on 08.04.2003 on the truck bearing No. RJ-14-G-8726, he

sustained injuries in discharge of his duties on 08.04.2003.

Thereafter, he was admitted in S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur where

during the course of treatment he died on 14.04.2003. The

claimants-respondents filed a claim petition before the learned

Commissioner seeking compensation of Rs. 3,38,888/- with

interest and penalty on account of loss suffered for the death of

workman- Gopiram.

The respondent No.6-Mangal Chand, owner of the vehicle

submitted his reply and admitted the fact of employment of the

deceased with him and also admitted that the deceased was

getting a monthly salary of Rs. 4,000/- and further stated that

since the vehicle was insured with "The National Insurance Co.

Ltd", hence, the Insurance Company is liable to make the payment

of compensation.

The appellant-Insurance Company submitted its reply and

denied the averments made in the claim petition and an objection

was taken that no notice under Section 10 of the Workmen's

Compensation Act, 1923 (for short 'the Act of 1923') was given

(3 of 6) [CMA-615/2007]

and it was also denied that the deceased was working under the

employment of the vehicle owner- Mangal Chand.

By the judgment and award dated 01.11.2006, the learned

Commissioner allowed the claim petition and awarded a

compensation of Rs. 3,38,880/- with interest @ 12% per annum

to the claimants-respondents.

Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award

dated 01.11.2006 passed by the learned Commissioner, the

appellant-Insurance Company preferred this appeal under Section

30 of the Act of 1923 without framing any substantial question of

law in the memo of this appeal.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance

Company argued that the deceased was not working under the

employment of the vehicle owner, hence, the deceased was not a

workman and the claimants are not entitled to get any amount of

compensation.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-

claimants argued that the present appeal filed under Section 30

of the Act of 1923 is not maintainable as no substantial question

of law has been framed. Hence, the instant appeal is liable to be

rejected only on this ground.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record.

Bare perusal of the proviso attached to Section 30 of the Act

of 1923 indicates that no appeal shall lie against any order passed

by the learned Commissioner unless a substantial question of law

is involved in the appeal.

It is the settled principle of law that the question as to

whether the employee met with an accident,

(4 of 6) [CMA-615/2007]

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 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 legal

representatives sue his employer to claim compensation under

this Act. 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.

The appeal provided under Section 30 of the Act of 1923 to

the High Court against the judgment and award passed by the

Commissioner shall lie only against the specific orders set out in

clause (a) to (e) of Section 30 of the Act of 1923 with a further

rider contained in first proviso to the Section that the appeal must

involve substantial question of law.

In other words, the appeal provided under Section 30 of the

Act of 1923 to the High Court against the order of the

Commissioner is not like a regular appeal akin to Section 96 of the

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which can be heard both on facts

and law. The appellate jurisdiction of the High Court to decide the

(5 of 6) [CMA-615/2007]

appeal is confined only to examine the substantial questions of law

arising in the case.

Such appeal is then heard on the question of admission with

a view to find out as to whether it involves any substantial

question of law or not. Whether the appeal involves a substantial

question of law or not, depends upon the facts of each case and

needs an examination by the High Court. If the substantial

question of law arises, the High Court would admit the appeal for

final hearing on merit else would dismiss in limini with the reasons

that it does not involve any substantial question/s of law.

It has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Ramsakhi Devi Vs. Chhatra Devi, reported in JT 2005 (6) SC 167

that without formulating the substantial question of law, the

appeal cannot be sustained.

The similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court

in the case of Gollarajanna and Ors. Vs. The Divisional Manager &

Ors., reported in 2017(1) SCC 45 and also in the case of North

East Karnataka Transport Corporation Vs. Sujatha, reported in

2019(11) SCC 514 that the appeal filed against the award passed

by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner is not

maintainable if any substantial question of law is not involved in

the same.

Hence, in the considered opinion of this Court, an appeal

under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 is not

maintainable in absence of framing any substantial question of

law.

Now coming to the facts of this case, I find that this appeal

has been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company without

(6 of 6) [CMA-615/2007]

framing any substantial question of law on the material issues in

the memo of appeal.

Thus, in view of the matter and looking to the finding of facts

recorded by the learned Commissioner, I do not find any ground to

call for any interference on the factual findings recorded by the

learned Commissioner. Since no substantial question of law has

been formulated in the memo of appeal, hence, this appeal is not

maintainable in view of the proviso attached to Section 30 of the

Act of 1923.

In the result, the instant appeal as well as the stay

application stand dismissed.

All the pending applications, if any, also stand dismissed.

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

Ritu/1

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)