Rajasthan High Court
United India Insurance Co Ltd vs Smt Narmada Devi And Others on 13 January, 2022
Bench: Anoop Kumar Dhand
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3754/2016
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. through Branch Manager,
Devipura, Jaipur Road, Sikar, having it's TP HUB office at 93,
Sapphire Centre, Ajmer Road, Jaipur, through it's Constituted
Attorney.
----non-claimant/Appellant
Versus
1. Smt. Narmada Devi wife of Lt. Jeevan Ram, Resident of Todas,
Teh. Nawan, District Nagaur (Rajasthan), presently resident of
Khood, Teh. Dantaramgarh, District Sikar, (Rajasthan)
2. Shyodan son of Kanaram, resident of Kadaksar, Teh. Nawan,
District Nagaur, (Rajasthan) (Registered owner of Jeep No.RJ-14-
U-1804)
3. Hanuman Prasad son of Tansukh Lal, resident of Todas, Teh.
Nawan, District Nagaur, (Raj.), (Driver of Jeep No.RJ-14-U-1804)
4. Commissioner, Employees Compensation Commissioner,
Nagaur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Tripurari Sharma, through VC
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ravi Jangir, through VC
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Order
13/01/2022
A challenge in the instant misc. appeal has been made to the
impugned judgment and award dated 23.05.2016 passed by the
Court of learned Commissioner Workmen's Compensation, Sikar,
(for short 'the learned Commissioner') in WCCF 74/2011 by which
the claim petition filed by the claimant-respondent has been
allowed and the Insurance company has been directed to pay
compensation of Rs.4,91,955/- to the claimant-respondent with
interest.
(2 of 3) [CMA-3754/2016]
Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award, the
Insurance company has preferred instant appeal on the ground
that there is no relationship between the deceased and the owner
of the vehicle and the deceased weas not having any valid licence
to ply the vehicle and lastly that the learned Commissioner was
not having territorial jurisdiction to hear and decide the claim
petition.
At the outset, learned counsel for the respondents has relied
upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
"North East Karnatka Transport Corporation Vs. Sujatha" reported
in 2019 (11) SCC 514, Golla Rajanna Etc. vs. The Divisional
Manager And Anr. reported in 2017(1) SCC 45 and Smt. Ram
Sakhi Devi Vs. Chhatra Devi & Ors. reported in JT 2005 (6) SC
167" wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that without
formumating substantial question of law the appeal cannot be
sustained. It is the settled position of law that the question as to
whether, there existed any relationship of employee and employer
or not, whether the commissioner was having any territorial
jurisdiction or not, whether the deceased was having any valid
licence to ply the vehicle or not are pure questions of facts which
arose for decision of the Commissioner in a claim petition when an
employee suffers any bodily injury or dies during the course of his
employement.
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.
I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(3 of 3) [CMA-3754/2016]
In the considered opinion of this Court, the findings recorded
by the learned Commissioner are based on sound appreciation of
evidence and the same are not liable to be disturbed by this Court
in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of "North East Karnatka Transport Corporation Vs. Sujatha,
Golla Rajanna Etc. vs. The Divisional Manager And Anr. (supra)
and Smt. Ram Sakhi Devi Vs. Chhatra Devi & Ors.(supra) as no
substantial question of law is involved in this appeal.
Hence, this civil misc. appeal filed by the Insurance Company
as well as stay application stand dismissed.
No order as to cost.
All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J
HEENA GANDHI /5
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
