Rajasthan High Court
United India Insurance Co Ltd vs Smt Bilasi And Ors on 18 January, 2022
Bench: Anoop Kumar Dhand
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2014/2010
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Authorized Signatory,
Regional Office, Sahara Chambers, Tonk Road, Jaipur
----Appellant
Versus
1. Smt. Bilasi Widow Of Late Shri Devlal, R/o Banetha,
Tehsil- Uniara, P.s. Banetha, District- Tonk Rajasthan
2. Rakesh Kumar S/o Late Shri Devlal, Minor Through His
Mother And Natural Guardian Smt. Bilasi Widow, R/o
Banetha, Tehsil- Uniara, P.s. Banetha, District- Tonk
Rajasthan
3. Kamla Devi W/o Shri Ramchandra Paliwal, R/o Plot No.
16, Sharma Colony, 22 Godam, Jaipur Rajasthan Owner
Of Tanker No. Rj-14/1G-4689
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Pritam Bijlani, through VC
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Praveen Kumar Jain, through VC
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Order
18/01/2022
A challenge in the instant misc. appeal has been made to the
impugned judgment and award dated 15.07.2009 passed by the
Court of learned Commissioner Workmen's Compensation, Tonk
(for short 'the learned Commissioner') in WCC/F/84/2008 by
which the claim petition filed by the claimants-respondents has
been allowed and the Insurance company has been directed to
pay compensation of Rs.4,48,000/- to the claimants-respondents
with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of accident.
(2 of 4) [CMA-2014/2010]
Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award, the
Insurance company has preferred instant appeal on the various
grounds that (i) the deceased was employed as a second driver of
the vehicle, hence, he was not covered under the insurance policy
(ii) the learned Commissioner has committed an error in granting
interest to the claimants-respondents with effect from the date of
accident while the learned Commissioner should have passed this
order from the date of filing the claim petition and (iii) that no
notice under Section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act,
1923 was given to the insurance company about the accident.
At the outset, learned counsel for the claimants-respondents
has relied upon the judgement passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of "North East Karnatka Transport Corporation
Vs. Sujatha" reported in 2019 (11) SCC 514 in which the Hon'ble
Apex Court has specifically held in Para Nos. 9 & 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 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 findings of
fact."
(3 of 4) [CMA-2014/2010]
Learned counsel for the claimants-respondents further
submitted that in this judgement the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
approved award of compensation with interest from the rate of
12% from the date of accident, hence, the contentions reaised by
the counsel for the Insurance Company are having no force.
Learned counsel lastly submitted that the entire amount of
compensation along with interest has already been disbursed to
the claimants-respondents.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents available on record.
In the considered opinion of this Court, the findings given by
the learned Commissioner are based on sound appreciation of
evidence and the same is not liable to be disturbed by this Court
as no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal.
Whatever the arguments have been raised by the counsel for
the Insurance Company are based on finding of facts which has
already been decided by the learned Commissioner and in view of
the settled position of law the finding of facts recorded by the
learned Commissioner cannot be reagitated again by way of filing
an appeal under Section 30 of the Act of 1923 as the Hon'ble Apex
Court has held in the case of "Golla Rajanna Etc. vs. The
Divisional Manager And Anr. reported in 2017(1) SCC 45" 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.
(4 of 4) [CMA-2014/2010]
Thus, in view of the discussion made hereinabove, no
substantial question of law is involved in this appeal.
Hence, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company stands
dismissed.
No order as to cost.
All the pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J
HEENA GANDHI /12
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
