Rajasthan High Court
Smt Naini And Others vs Om Prakash And Another on 17 January, 2022
Bench: Anoop Kumar Dhand
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 341/2015
1. Smt. Naini W/o Late Shri Rahman, aged about 62 years,
R/o Village Surajpura, Post Kharwa, P.s. Beawar Sadar,
Tehsil- Masuda, District Ajmer.
2. Smt. Allamafi W/o Shri Mehmood Alias Mohammad,aged
about 23 years, R/o Village Surajpura, Post Kharwa, P.s.
Beawar Sadar, Tehsil- Masuda, District Ajmer.
3. Ku. Ruksana D/o Late Shri Mehmood Alias Mohammad,
aged about 5 years, Minor Through Their Natural
Guardian Mother Smt. Allamafi, R/o Village Surajpura,
Post Kharwa, P.s. Beawar Sadar, Tehsil- Masuda, District
Ajmer.
4. Master Imran S/o Late Shri Mehmood Alias Mohammad,
aged about 4 years, Minor Through Their Natural
Guardian mother Smt. Allamafi, R/o Village Surajpura,
Post Kharwa, P.S. Beawar Sadar, Tehsil- Masuda, District
Ajmer.
----Appellants/Claimants.
Versus
1. Om Prakash S/o Shri Madanram Ji Jat, R/o Village
Silgoun, Tehsil And District- Naragur Raj.
2. Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd., First Floor,
N.k. Tower, Plot No. 40, Chaupasani Road, Jodhpur.
Having Its Regional Office At Office At 2, 3rd Floor, C-98,
Sanghvi Upsana Tower, Subhash Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur-
302001
----Respondents/Non-claimants.
(2 of 4) [CMA-341/2015]
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Jai Prakash Gupta, Adv., through
VC
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Virendra Agarwal, Adv., through
VC assisted by Mr. Prakhar Agarwal,
Adv.,through VC
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Order
17/01/2022
A challenge in the instant misc. appeal has been made to the
judgment and award dated 22.12.2014 passed by the Court of
Commissioner Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, Beawer Sub-
division Beawer in claim case No. ECA/F/06/2012 by which the
claim petition filed by the claimants-appellants was allowed and an
award of Rs. 6,17,850/- was passed in favour of the claimants
with interest along with a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/-.
Learned counsel for the claimants-appellants states that the
amount of compensation awarded by the learned Commissioner is
meager. While determining the salary of the deceased, the
Tribunal has not considered the fact that the deceased was getting
salary of Rs. 10,000/- per month. The employer admitted the fact
that the deceased was getting salary of Rs. 8,000/- per month,
apart from Rs. 50/- per day. Thus, the Tribunal recorded the
perverse findings looking to the admitted pleadings available on
record. The Tribunal has seriously erred in determining the
monthly salary of Rs. 6,000/-. Hence, the impugned award needs
suitable enhancement.
At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-
Insurance Company argued that this appeal is not maintainable as
(3 of 4) [CMA-341/2015]
per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case
of North-East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation and
Ors. Vs. Smt. Sujatha reported in (2019) 11 SCC 514 in
which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken a view in para 9 and
10, which reads 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 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 Mr. Virendra Agarwal further submitted that
the Tribunal while passing the impugned award recorded findings
of fact and the finding of fact cannot be treated as a substantial
question of law. Thus, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents available on record.
(4 of 4) [CMA-341/2015]
In the considered opinion of this Court, 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
unless and until any substantial question of law is involved and it
is a settled position of law that the appeal under Section 30 of the
Workmen's Compensation Act is maintainable purely on the
substantial question of law not on the basis of questions of facts.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Golla Rajanna and
Ors. Vs. The Divisional Manager and Ors., reported in 2017
(1) SCC 45 has categorically held that under the scheme of
Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, the learned 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 welfare legislation. It has also been held by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court that limited jurisdiction has been given to the High
Court and the High Court cannot venture and to re-appreciate the
evidence and the findings of fact recorded on the basis of evidence
led by both the parties.
Thus, in view of the above discussion, no substantial
question of law is found to be involved in this appeal.
Hence, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.
All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J
PRAVESH KUMAR MISHRA /50
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
