Rajasthan High Court
United India Isnurance Co Ltd vs Dinesh Sain And Another on 13 January, 2022
Bench: Anoop Kumar Dhand
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4954/2012
United India Isnurance Co. Ltd. having its regional Office at
Sahara Chambers, Tonk Road, Jaipur, through its constituted
attorney.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Dinesh Sain son of Mishri Lal Sain, resident of Village
Maramda, Tehsil Sapotra, Dist. Karauli, Rajasthan.
2. Kanahiya Lal Yadav son of Pala Ram Yadav, resident of Village
Sunderpura, Bilpur, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur (owner)
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rizwan Ahmed and
Mr. Praveen Jain, 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 29.10.2012 passed by the
Court of learned Commissioner Workmen's Compensation, Jaipur
District-I, Jaipur (for short 'the learned Commissioner') in
ECC/NF/285/2010 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.2,89,833/-
to the claimant-respondent with interest.
Brief facts of the case are that the claimant-respondent filed
a claim petition under the provisions of Workmen's Compensation
Act, 1923 before the learned Commissioner, stating therein that
he was a driver on truck bearing No.RJ-14-GB-3651 and the same
was insured with the appellant-Insurance Company and he
(2 of 3) [CMA-4954/2012]
sustained serious injuries in an accident which occurred on
13.05.2010 and he sustained permanent disability of 36%.
The appellant-Insurance Company submitted its reply and
denied the averments made in the claim petition and prayed for
rejection of the claim.
After hearing the parties, learned Commissioner allowed the
claim petition vide judgment and award dated 29.10.2012
directing the Insurance Company to pay compensation of
Rs.2,89,833/- with interest to the claimant.
Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award, the
Insurance Company has submitted this appeal on the ground that
the injured-claimant sustained 36% permanent disability only,
while the learned Commisioner has assessed his disability as 70%
and the learned Commissioner was not having any territorial
jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents available on record.
In the considered opinion of this Court, finding of fact
recorded by the learned Commissioner cannot be interfered by the
High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction contained under Section
30 of the Act of 1923.
Time and again, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has decided this
issue 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"
wherein it has been categorically held that the appeal filed against
the award passed by the learned Commissioner is not
maintainable if any substantial question of law is not involved in
the case.
(3 of 3) [CMA-4954/2012]
The Hon'ble Apex Court has further held that under the
scheme of the Act the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner is
the last authority on facts. The Parliament has thought it proper to
restrict the scope of the appeal only to the substantial question 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 reappreciate the evidence recorded on its finding.
Thus, in view of the discussions made hereinabove, no
substantial question of law is found to be involved in this appeal.
Hence, the present civil misc. appeal filed by the Insurance
Company along with stay application stand dismissed.
No order as to cost.
All the pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J
HEENA GANDHI /3
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
