United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Pokhar Mal Saini S/O Shri Rampal
2022 Latest Caselaw 299 Raj/2

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

           S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 851/2020

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Through Branch Manager, Local
Branch Office Devipura, Jaipur Road, Sikar, Rajasthan Having Its
T.P. Hub Office, 93, Sapphire Building Opposite E.S.I. Dispensary,
Jaipur Rajasthan Through Its Constituted Attorney. (Insurance
Company Of Vehicle Tractor No. Rj 37 Ra-2748 Policy No.
1418003115P102495030              for      the      Period       05.06.2015   To
04.06.2016)
                                                 ----Non-Claimant-Appellant
                                    Versus
1.      Pokhar Mal Saini S/o Shri Rampal, Aged About 22 Years,
        R/o Ghatwa, Tehsil Nanva, District Nagaur, Rajasthan
        Presently Residing At C/o Mahesh Kumar Saini, Ward No.
        28 New, Devipura Road, Sikar, Tehsil And District Sikar,
        Rajasthan.
                                                       ...Claimant-Respondent

2. Rampal S/o Shri Laduram, R/o Ghatwa, Tehsil Nanva, District Nagaur, Rajasthan. (Registered Owner Of Vehicle Tractor No. Rj 37 RA-2748)

----Non-Claimant-Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Tripurari Sharma, Adv., through VC For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Singh Shekhawat, Adv., through VC

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Order

13/01/2022

Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award

dated 13.01.2020 passed by the Court of Workmen's

Compensation Commissioner, Sikar (Camp Alwar) in claim case

No. E.C.C.N.F.21/2016, the appellant-Insurance Company has filed

the instant appeal before this Court.

(2 of 5) [CMA-851/2020]

The Skeleton facts of the case are that the claimant-

respondent filed a claim petition before the Commissioner of

Workmen's Compensation (hereinafter referred to as 'learned

Commissioner') stating therein that he was employed as a driver

of Tractor bearing No.RJ-37-2748 attached with Thresher machine

and the same was owned by non-claimant-respondent-Rampal on

29.11.2015 when he was working under the employment and

direction of -non-claimant-respondent No.2 and during discharging

of his duties he sustained grievous injuries by thresher machine

due to which his right palm was amputed and he sustained

permanent disability. The owner of the Tractor submitted his reply

and admitted the averments of the claim petition by taking an

objection that there was no relationship of owner and employee

between the claimant and non-claimant as the claimant-

respondent is the son of non-claimant-respondent. Hence, the

claimant is not entitled to get any amount of compensation.

After perusing the documents available on record, pleadings

and evidence, learned Commissioner allowed the claim petition

directing the appellant-Insurance Company to pay the

compensation of Rs. 8,64,131/- with interest to the claimant-

respondent.

Feeling aggrieved by the same, the appellant-Insurance

Company submitted instant appeal before this Court under Section

30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter

referred to as ' Act 1923'). Learned counsel for the appellant-

Insurance Company submitted that there was no relationship of

employee and the employer of the claimant-respondent with the

non-claimant as the claimant-respondent is the son of non-

claimant-respondent. His second submission is that no premium

(3 of 5) [CMA-851/2020]

was charged for the thresher machine hence the appellant-

Insurance Company is not liable to make the payment of

compensation. He further argued that collusive claim has been

filed in conspiracy with his father. In support of his contention, the

learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company relied upon

the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme court of Gottumukkala

Appala Narasimha Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr

reported in 2007 DNJ (7) (SC) 713 and New India

Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sadanand Mukhi & Ors. Reported in

2009 ACJ 998 where in the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the

appellant is not liable to make any compensation unless and until

the relationship of employee and employer is established.

Lastly, he argued that the claimant-respondent was not

working as driver but he was putting the grains into thresher

machine and during the course of that work, he sustained injuries.

Hence, the claimant-respondent does not fall within the ambit of

workmen defined under the Act, 1923.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for claimant-

respondent relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court

in the case of North East K.R.T.C Vs. Sujatha reported in

2019 (11) SCC 514 in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has

held that without formulating any substantial question of law, the

appeal cannot be submitted. He further submitted that whatever

argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant-

insurance company are related question of fact which cannot be

re-appreciated by this Court in case of its jurisdiction contained

under Section 30 of the Act, 1923.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

documents available on record.

(4 of 5) [CMA-851/2020]

In the considered opinion of this Court, it is a settled

principle of law as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case

of North East K.R.T.C Vs. Sujatha (supra) 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.

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, 1923 to the

High Court lies only against the specific orders of Act in clause (a)

(2) (c) of Section 30 of the Act, 1923 with further provision

contained in first proviso of Section 30 that the appeal must

involve substantial question of law.

It has been further held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case of Golla Rajanna and Ors. Vs. The Divisional Manager

and Ors., reported in 2017 (1) SCC 45 that under the scheme

of the Act, 1923 the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner is

(5 of 5) [CMA-851/2020]

the last authority on facts. The Parliament has thought it proper to

restrict the scope of the appeal only to substantial questions of

law, being a welfare legislation. It has been further held that the

High Court has very limited jurisdiction and it has no jurisdiction

to re-appreciate the evidence recorded on its own findings of fact

recorded on the basis of the evidence led by both the parties. The

objections taken by the appellant-Insurance Company are pure

question of fact upon which the finding has already been recorded

by the learned Commissioner. Since, the appeal is not quantified

to have a substantial question of law, which is mandatory under

Section 30 of the Act, 1923. The objection taken by the Insurance

Company has already been decided by the learned Commissioner

by recording its finding of fact which cannot be disturbed by this

Court, therefore, no interference is called for in the present appeal

and the same is hereby dismissed.

All pending applications as well as stay application, if any,

also stand disposed of.

Office is directed to send back the record of the court below

forthwith.

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

PRAVESH KUMAR MISHRA /16

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)