Rajasthan High Court
The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd vs Smt Ramvati And Anr on 18 January, 2022
Bench: Anoop Kumar Dhand
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1741/2017
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch Manager,
Branch Office 21, Station Road, New Mandi, Bharatpur, Having
Its Regional Office At Anand Bhawan, Sansar Chandra Road,
Jaipur Through Its Constituted Attorney
----Non-Claimant-Appellant
Versus
1. Smt. Ramvati W/o Late Shri Brajendra Singh, aged about
67 years, R/o Teen Thok, Jagheena, Tehsil And District
Bharatpur Raj.
Claimant-Respondent
2. Vishal Garg S/o Shri Vishnu Kumar Garg, R/o 147, S.p.m.
Nagar, Bharatpur Raj.
----Non-Claimant-Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Virendra Agarwal, Adv., through
VC with Mr. Prakhar Agarwal, Adv.,
through VC
For Respondent(s) : None present.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Judgment
18/01/2022
This miscellaneous appeal under Section 30 of the
Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (For short 'Act of 1923') has
been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company claiming the
following reliefs:-
"It, is therefore, most humbly prayed that
Your Lordships may graciously be pleased to
admit and allow this appeal and call for the
record of the claim case No. ECA(F)/D-42/2010
from Employees Compensation Commissioner,
Bharatpur and further be pleased to quash and
set aside the impugned award dated 30.01.2017
against the appellant Insurance Company with
cost through out.
(2 of 3) [CMA-1741/2017]
Any other order or relief which this Hon'ble
High Court deems fit and proper may also kindly
be pleased in favour of the appellant. "
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-
Insurance Company submits that the Workmen's Compensation
Commissioner (for short 'learned Commissioner') was not justified
in recording the findings that the deceased was died during the
course of employment and there was no relationship between
employee and employer with the owner of the vehicle.
Lastly, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company
argued that there is a violation of Section 10 of the Act of 1923 as
no information was furnished to the appellant-Insurance Company
about the death of the employee. Hence, the perverse findings
have recorded by the learned Commissioner at the time of passing
the impugned award.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company
and perused the documents available on record.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of North-East
Karnataka Road Transport Corporation and Ors. Vs. Smt.
Sujata reported in (2019) 11 SCC 514 has held that it is the
settled position of law that whether the accident occurred during
the course of employment, how and in what manner the incident
occurred, all these are the questions of fact which arises for just
and proper decision of the learned Commissioner in a claim
petition when an employee suffers any bodily injury or dies during
the course of employment.
The aforementioned questions are essentially the questions
of facts and therefore they are required to be proved by the aid of
evidence. Once they are proved either way, the finding, recorded
thereon, are recorded as finding of the facts. Again the Hon'ble
(3 of 3) [CMA-1741/2017]
Supreme Court has taken a view in the case of Golla Rajanna
and Ors. Vs. The Divisional Manager and Ors., reported in
2017 (1) SCC 45 that under the scheme of the Act, 1923, the
learned Commissioner is the last authority on facts and the High
Court has very limited jurisdiction and it has not the jurisdiction of
the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence recorded on its own
findings unless and until any substantial question of law is
involved.
Since the appeal is not qualifying to have a substantial
question of law which is mandatory under Section 30 of the Act,
1923 and the objections taken by the appellant-Insurance
Company are questions of facts which have already been
adjudicated by recording the cogent finding by the learned
Commissioner. Therefore, no interference is called for in the
present case and the same is liable to be dismissed and is hereby
dismissed.
All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
Record of the Court below be sent back forthwith.
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J
Pravesh/56
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
