Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Co Ltd vs Smt Asha Devi And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 366 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

            S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2890/2012

HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd., 6, Luhadiya Tower,
Ashok Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur having its regional office at N-22,
Second Floor, Sector-18, Noida-201301 through its constituted
attorney.
                                                 ----Non-Claimant/Appellant
                                    Versus
1. Smt. Asha Devi W/o Late Shri Shivraj, aged about 30 yers.
2. Manisha D/o Late Shri Shivraj, aged about 10 years.
3. Kali D/o Late Shri Shivraj, aged about 7 years.
4. Bhaguti Devi D/o Late Shri Bojuram, aged about 72 years,
Claimants-respondents No. 2 & 3 are being minor through their

natural guardian and mother Smt. Asha Devi W/o Late Shri Shivraj.

All R/o 78, Vill. Nimbeda, Teh. Kekri, Distt. Ajmer

----Claimants/Respondents

5. Smt. Vimla Devi W/o Shri Sadhuram, R/o 14, New Colony, Shahpura, Distt. Jaipur.

---Non-Claimant/Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Virendra Agarwal, Adv. Assisted by Mr. Prakhar Agarwal, Adv., through VC For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sunil Jain, Adv., through VC

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Order

17/01/2022

This appeal has been filed by the appellant-Insurance

Company against the judgment and award dated 26.06.2012

passed by the Court of Workmen's Compensation Commissioner,

Jaipur City, Jaipur in claim case No. WCC/F 144/2010 whereby an

award of Rs. 6,11,550.00/- with interest has been passed in

favour of the claimants-respondents.

                                            (2 of 4)                  [CMA-2890/2012]



     The     brief   facts    of    the    case       are    that   the    claimants-

respondents lodged a claim petition before the Workmen's

Compensation Commissioner (hereinafter referred to as 'learned

Commissioner'), Jaipur City, Jaipur under Section 20 of the

Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as

'Act of 1923') against the appellant-Insurance Company as well as

respondent No.5 claiming compensation on account of the loss

suffered by them due to death of Shivraj Singh on 07.06.2010

when he was working as Khallasi of vehicle-Terbo No. RJ-32-GA-

3639 which was owned by by respondent No.5. It was further

mentioned in the claim petition that at the time of accident, the

age of the deceased was 30 years and he was getting salary of Rs.

10,000/- per month.

The respondent No.5 did not appear before the learned

Commissioner in spite of the service, however, the appellant-

Insurance Company submitted its reply and denied averments of

the claim petition and it was pleaded that no notice under Section

10 of the Act of 1923 was given and the vehicle was driven

without any valid permit and fitness certificate.

Thus, the appellant-Insurance Company prayed for

dismissing the claim petition.

After hearing the arguments of both the sides, learned

Commissioner allowed the claim petition vide impugned judgment

and award dated 26.06.2012 and directed the appellant-Insurance

Company to pay an award of Rs. 6,11,550.00/- with interest to

the claimants-respondents.

Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and award dated, the

appellant-Insurance Company has submitted this appeal on the

ground that there exist no relationship of employee and employer

(3 of 4) [CMA-2890/2012]

between the deceased and the owner of the vehicle and the

accident has not occurred during the course of employment.

Hence, the claimants-respondents are not entitled to get any

amount of compensation. It was further argued by the learned

counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company that since there is a

non-compliance of the mandatory provision contained under

Section 10 of the Act of 1923. The provisions of the Act of 1923

are not attracted, therefore, the award passed by the learned

Commissioner is liable to be quashed and set aside by this Court.

Per Contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

respondents relied upon the judgment of North East Karnataka

Road Transport Corporation and Anr. Vs. Smt. Sujatha and

Ors., reported in 2019 (11) SCC 514 in which the Hon'ble Apex

Court has held that the appeal against the award passed by the

learned Commissioner is not maintainable if any substantial

question of law is not involved in the same.

Learned counsel for the claimants-respondents further placed

reliance upon the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in

the case of Golla Rajanna and Ors. Vs. The Divisional

Manager and Ors., reported in 2017 (1) SCC 45 where in the

Apex Court has held that under the scheme of the Act, 1923, the

learned Commissioner is the last authority on facts. The

Parliament has thought it proper to restrict the scope of the

appeal in the substantial question of law, being welfare legislation.

After hearing the arguments of both the sides and after

perusing the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the ratio

decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of North East

Karnataka Road Transport Corporation (supra) and Golla Rajanna

(supra), this court is of the view that the findings given by the

(4 of 4) [CMA-2890/2012]

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.

Thus, in view of the above discussions, this Court does not

find any substantial question of law involved in this appeal and the

same is dismissed.

All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

Record of the court below be sent back forthwith.

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

Pravesh/10

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)