Rajasthan High Court
Smt Urmila Devi And Ors vs Pitharam And Ors on 17 January, 2022
Bench: Anoop Kumar Dhand
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4700/2011
1. Smt. Urmila Devi W/o Late Shri Leelaram, aged about 25
years, R/o Lakhawala alias Bhojpura, Tehsil Viratnagar, Distt.
Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Kumari Sunita D/o Leela Ram, aged about 7 years, Minor
through Natural Guardian and Mother Urmila Devi W/o Leela
Ram, R/o Lakhawala alias Bhojpura, Tehsil Viratnagar, Distt.
Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Kumari Anita D/o Leelaram, aged about 5 years, Minor
through Natural Guardian and Mother Urmila Devi W/o Leela
Ram, R/o Lakhawala alias Bhojpura, Tehsil Viratnagar, Distt.
Jaipur (Raj.)
4. Kumari Ravina D/o Leelaram, aged about 3 years, Minor
through Natural Guardian and Mother Urmila Devi W/o Leela
Ram, R/o Lakhawala alias Bhojpura, Tehsil Viratnagar, Distt.
Jaipur (Raj.)
5. Pramod S/o Leelaram, aged about 1-1/2 years, Minor through
Natural Guardian and Mother Urmila Devi W/o Leela Ram, R/o
Lakhawala alias Bhojpura, Tehsil Viratnagar, Distt. Jaipur (Raj.)
----Appellants/Claimants
Versus
1. Pitharam S/o Shri Choturam, R/o Lakhawala Alias Bhojpura,
Tehsil Viratnagar, Distt. Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Bajaj Aliianz General Insurance Company Ltd. O-12-A, Second
Floor, Ashok Marg, Jaipur
----Respondents/Non-Claimants
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Gaurav Gupta through VC
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Vartika Mehra through VC for Mr.
Sandeep Pathak
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Judgment
17/01/2022
By filing the present appeal, a challenge has been made to
judgment and award dated 26.09.2008 passed by the Court of
(2 of 3) [CMA-4700/2011]
learned Commissioner Workmen's Compensation, Jaipur-II, Jaipur
[for short 'the learned Commissioner'] in Case No. WCCF 11/07,
whereby the claim petition filed by the claimants-appellants has
been allowed and compensation of Rs. 3,81,620/- along with
interest has been awarded.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellants-claimants
submits that a meager amount of compensation has been
awarded by the learned Commissioner while passing the impugned
judgment and award. The learned Commissioner has committed
an error in deciding issue No.2 for deducting 50% of the monthly
income of the deceased looking to the number of dependents of
the deceased. Counsel further submits that proper income of the
deceased has not been determined at the time of the passing of
the award. Hence, the award-in-question needs suitable
enhancement. Counsel further submits that the age of the
deceased was 24 years, while the learned Commissioner has
recorded the perverse finding with regard to the age of the
deceased as 38 years on the basis of post-mortem of the
deceased.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondents-non-
claimants has placed reliance on the judgment delivered by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in North East Karnataka Road Transport
Corporation vs. Sujatha, reported in 2019 (11) SCC 514 wherein
the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in Para Nos. 9 and 10 as under:
"9. At the outset, we may 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
(3 of 3) [CMA-4700/2011]
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 and
he/his LRs sue(s) his employer to claim
compensation under the Act.
10. 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 finding of fact."
From the bare perusal of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation (supra),
it is clear that the appeal filed against the judgment and award
passed by the learned Commissioner is not maintainable if any
substantial question of law is not involved.
In the considered opinion of this Court, the findings arrived
at 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 question of law is involved in this appeal.
Hence, the present appeal fails and the same is accordingly
dismissed.
No order as to cost.
All the pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J
Ritu/37
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
