Pinki vs Mangal Chand
2022 Latest Caselaw 300 Raj/2

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                     BENCH AT JAIPUR

            S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3530/2012

1. Smt. Pinki W/o Late Virendra Sharma, aged about 27 years,


2. Smt. Munni Devi W/o Late Kalyan Sharma, aged about 72
years,


3. Master Mukund S/o Late Virendra Singh, aged about 8 years,
(No.3 minor through natural guardian mother Smt. Pinki),
(All residents of Village Jaitpura, Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur. At
present r/o. Pratap Pura, Tehsil Jobner, District Jaipur.
                                                     ----Claimants-Appellants
                                    Versus


1. Mangal Chand Gurjar S/o Shri Chhitarmal Gurjar, through
Power of Attorney Shri Lalaram Saini S/o Shri Rewadram Saini,
R/o 28, Maliyon ki Dhani, Arjunpura, Jaipur.


2. Regional Manager, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
M.I. Road, Jaipur.
                                                                 ----Respondents

Connected With

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1907/2012 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co Ltd., through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Bhagwati Bhawan, Near P.L. Motors, Government Hostel Chouraha, Jaipur through its Constituent Attorney.

----Appellant Versus

1. Smt. Pinki W/o Late Virendra Sharma, aged about 27 years,

2. Smt. Munni Devi W/o Late Kalyan Sharma, aged about 72 years,

3. Master Mukund S/o Late Virendra Singh, aged about 8 years, Being minor through his natural guardian mother Smt. Pinki W/o Late Virendra Sharma

(2 of 5) [CMA-3530/2012]

(All residents of Village Jaitpura, Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur. Presently r/o. Pratap Pura, Tehsil Jobner, District Jaipur.

----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Satyapal Poshwal, Adv., through VC Mr. Virendra Agrawal, Adv., through VC with Mr. Prakhar Agrawal, Adv., through VC in S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1907/2012 For Respondent(s) : Mr. Virendra Agrawal, Adv., through VC with Mr. Prakhar Agrawal, Adv., through VC in S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3530/2012

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Order

13/01/2022

Both appeals arise out of the same award dated 10.04.2012

passed by the Court of Workmen's Compensation Commissioner,

Jaipur District-I, Jaipur in claim case No. WCC/F/151/2010

whereby the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation

(hereinafter referred to as 'learned Commissioner') has awarded

the Compensation of Rs. 4,07,700/- to the claimant-respondents

alongwith interest from the date of filing of the claim petitions.

The appellant-Insurance Company has filed this appeal on

the ground that the claimant-respondents are not entitled to get

compensation for the reason that there exist no relationship of

employee and employer between the claimant-respondent and the

insured.

On the other hand, claimant-respondents have submitted the

appeal by saying that there exist the relationship of employee and

the employer between the claimant and the insured and the

(3 of 5) [CMA-3530/2012]

learned Commissioner has rightly allowed the claim petitions

directing the Insurance Company to make the payment of

compensation but the learned Commissioner has committed an

illegality by not awarding the interest from the date accident but

the interest has been awarded from the date of filing of the claim

petitions.

In support their contentions, learned counsel appearing for

insurance company has placed reliance upon the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance

Company Vs Sivy George and Ors. reported in 2012 MACD

(SC) 129.

Lastly, they argued that the Insurance Company be directed

to pay the interest on the determined compensation from the date

of accident.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record.

At the outset, this Court 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

(4 of 5) [CMA-3530/2012]

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."

Time and again, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken a

consistent view in the case of Golla Rajanna and Ors. Vs. The

Divisional Manager and Ors., reported in 2017 (1) SCC 45

and in the case of North-East Karnataka Road Transport

Corporation and Ors. Vs. Smt. Sujata reported in (2019) 11

SCC 514. The findings recorded by the learned Commissioner is

findings of fact and the same cannot be disturbed by the High

Court and unless and until any substantial question of law is

involved. That 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 questions of

law are involved.

The arguments raised by both learned counsel for the

insurance company and learned counsel for the claimant-

respondents are based on pure question of facts and there is no

substantial question of law involved in both these appeals.

In my opinion, the direction issued by the learned

Commissioner for grant of interest to the claimant-respondents

from the date of filing of the claim petitions is just and proper and

no interference is required by this Court to pass any further

direction.

Thus, in view of the above discussions, no substantial

question of law is involved in these appeals.

(5 of 5) [CMA-3530/2012]

Hence, both these appeals fail and the same are dismissed.

Learned Commissioner is directed to disburse the amount as

per the terms and conditions mentioned in the award forthwith

without any delay.

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

forthwith.

All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

Pravesh/17-18

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)