United India Insurance Co Ltd vs Urmila And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 323 Raj/2

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 323 Raj/2
Judgement Date : 17 January, 2022

Rajasthan High Court

United India Insurance Co Ltd vs Urmila 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. 1071/2006

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Regional Manager,
Sahara Chambers, Tonk Road, Jaipur.
                                        ----Appellant/Non-Claimant No.2
                                   Versus
1.      Urmila D/o Shri Ram Kumar, Bairwa, Minor
2.      Pooja D/o Shri Ram Kumar, Bairwa, Minor,
        Both Minors Through Their Natural Guardian Smt. Jiyana
        W/o Shri Ruparam, Resident Of Kathmana, Tehsil- Piplu,
        District- Tonk Raj.
3.      Smt. Jiyana W/o Shri Ruparam, R/o Kathmana, Tehsil-
        Piplu, District- Tonk. Raj.
                                                      Respondents-Claimants

4. Ramnarain S/o Shri Nathuram, R/o Village- Khandevat, Tehsil- Niwai, District- Tonk. Raj., owner Of The Motor Cycle No. Rj-20/M-2187

----Respondent/Non-claimant no.1

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Pritam Bijlani, Adv., through VC For Respondent(s) : Mr. Praveen Jain, Adv., through VC

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Order

17/01/2022

Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company states

that the respondent No.4 is a proforma party and he remained

absent while passing the impugned judgment/award by the

Workmen's Compensation Commissioner. Thus, the service of

notice upon the respondent No.4 be dispensed with.

Ordered accordingly.

With the consent of both the counsel appearing for the

parties, the matter is finally heard on merit.

(2 of 4) [CMA-1071/2006]

This Miscellaneous appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's

Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1923')

has been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company with the

following reliefs:-

"It is therefore most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may very graciously be pleased to call for the record of the case from the Learned Commissioner and accept this appeal, and

(i) Suitably amend/alter/modify the impugned judgment/award dated 16.4.2005 of the Learned Commissioner and dismiss the claim petition against the appellant-insurance company.

(ii) Alternatively, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing prayer, suitably amend/alter/modify the impugned judgment/award dated 16.4.2005 of the Learned Commissioner and absolve the present appellant form the liability to make the payment of interest amount.

(iii) Alternatively, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing prayer, suitably amend/alter/modify the impugned judgment/award dated 16.04.2005 of the Learned Commissioner and reduce the rate of interest.

(iv) Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper be passed in favour of the appellant,

(v) Costs of the appeal be awarded to the appellant."

At the outset, learned counsel for the claimants-respondents

relied upon the judgment of North-East Karnataka Road

Transport Corporation and Ors. Vs. Smt. Sujatha reported

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

held that without there being any substantial question of law, the

appeal cannot be sustained. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held

in Paras 9 and 10 as under:-

(3 of 4) [CMA-1071/2006]

"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 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."

Learned counsel for the claimants-respondents further relied

upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Krishna Weaving

Mills Vs. Smt. Chandra Bhaga Devi reported in 1985 (1)

WLN 455 wherein this Court while dealing with the Act of 1923

has laid down that unless there is a question of public importance

and there is no final interpretation available with the substantial

question of law arising out of the appeal under the Act of 1923

cannot be entertained. Learned counsel for the appellant-

Insurance Company has not been able to point out any substantial

question of law involved in this appeal.

(4 of 4) [CMA-1071/2006]

Since the appeal is not qualifying to have a substantial