Rajasthan High Court

National Insurance Co Ltd vs Narayan And Others on 30 June, 2022

Bench: Anoop Kumar Dhand

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

           S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1675/2016

 National Insurance Company Limited through its Authorised
 Officer, Jaipur Regional Office, Ambedkar Circle, Bhawani Singh
 Road, Jaipur.
                                           ----Non-claimant No.2/Appellant
                                      Versus
 1. Narayan son of Lt. Sh. Ghasiram Bairwa, aged 60 years.
 2. Kamla Devi wife of Lt. Sh. Narayan Bairwa, aged 55 years.
      Both residents of 23, Slavariya Ki Dhani, Keshpura, Tehsil
 Bassi, District Jaipur (Raj.)
                                                       ----Claimant-respondent

3. Rameshwar son of Ram Niwas, resident of H. No.383, Bairwa Ki Dhani, Chadlai, Tehsil Chaksu, District Jaipur (Raj.), (Registered owner of Vehicle No.RJ-14-CQ-6632)

----Non-claimant-Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Praveen Kumar Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bhanu Prakash

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Judgment

30/06/2022

Instant appeal has been submitted against impugned

judgment and award dated 29.12.2015 (the date was erroneously

typed as 29.12.2014 in the impugned award) passed by the Court

of learned Commissioner Workmen's Compensation, Jaipur

District, (hereinafter referred to as the 'learned Commissioner') in

WCC case No.75/2013 by which the claim petition filed by the

claimant-respondent was allowed and the appellant-Insurance

Company was directed to pay compensation of Rs.6,00,860/- to

the claimant-respondent.

(2 of 6) [CMA-1675/2016]

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned judgment

and award dated 29.12.2015, instant appeal has been preferred

by the appellant-Insurance Company.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the claimants

have failed to prove the relationship of employer and employee

and without considering this fact, the learned Commissioner has

determined the relationship of employer and employee without

their being any evidence available on the record.

Learned counsel further submits that at the time of accident,

the driver of the vehicle was found to be in a drunken position and

he was driving the vehicle under the influence of liquor. He further

submits that as per the claim petition the deceased was holding

the license to ply the light motor vehicle and he was not having

any license to drive the commercial vehicle. Lastly, learned

counsel submits that under these facts and circumstances the

impugned judgment passed by the learned Commissioner is liable

to be quashed and set aside by this Court.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the

arguments raised by the counsel for the appellant and submits

that it is the settled position of law that the findings recorded by

the learned Commissioner cannot be re-appreciated by this Court

as per Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. In

support of his contentions, learned counsel for the respondent has

placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case

of "Golla Rajanna Etc. vs. The Divisional Manager And Anr."

reported in 2017(1) SCC 45 and "North East Karnatka

Transport Corporation Vs. Smt. Sujatha" reported in 2019

(11) SCC 514.

(3 of 6) [CMA-1675/2016]

Learned counsel further submits that this fact was not

argued before the learned Commissioner that the driver was

plying the vehicle under the influence of liquor. Lastly, he submits

that the learned Commissioner has not committed any illegality in

allowing the claim petition filed by the claimant-respondent and on

the basis of appreciation of evidence, the learned Commissioner

has rightly passed the award, which needs no interference by this

Court.

Heard counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned

judgment and 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.

In the opinion of this Court, the learned Commissioner is the

last authority on facts as it has been held by the Hon'ble Suprme

Court in the case of Golla Rajanna (supra), wherein it has been

held in Para No. 8 & 10 as under:

"8. Section 30 of the Act provides for appeal to the High Court. To the extent, the provision reads as follows;

30. Appeals.-(1) An appeal shall lie to the High Courtfrom the following orders of a Commissioner, namely:

(a) an order awarding as compensation a lump sum whether by way of redemption of a half- monthly payment or otherwise or disallowing a claim in full or in part for a lump sum; [(aa) an order awarding interest or penalty Under Section 4A;]

(b) an order refusing to allow redemption of a half-monthly payment;

(c) an order providing for the distribution of compensation among the dependants of a deceased workman, or disallowing any claim of a person alleging himself dto be such dependant;

(d) an order allowing or disallowing any claim for the amount of an indemnity under the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 12;

         or



                                        (4 of 6)                [CMA-1675/2016]

(e) an order refusing to register a memorandum of agreement or registering the same or providing for the registration of the same subject to conditions:

Provided that no appeal shall lie against any order unless a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal and in the case of an order other than an order such as is referred to in Clause (b), unless the amount in dispute in teh appeal is not less than three hundred rupees (Emphasis supplied)

10. Under the schment of the Act, the workmen's Compensation Commissioner is the last authority on facts. The Parliament has thought it fit to restrict the scope of the appeal only to substantial question of law, being a welfare legislation. Unfortunately, the High Court has missed this crucial question of limited jurisdiction and has ventured to re-appreciate the evidence and recorded its own findings on percentage of disability for which also there is no basis. The whole exercise made by the High Court is not within the competence of the High Court under Section 30 of the Act."

The similar view has been expressed by the Hon'ble Apex

Court in the case of Smt. Sujatha (supra). It has specifically

held in Para Nos. 9 to 12 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

(5 of 6) [CMA-1675/2016]

they are proved either way, the findings recorded thereon are regarded as the findings of fact.

11. The appeal provided under Section 30 of the Act to the High Court against the order of the Commissioner lies only against the specific orders set out in clauses (a) to (e) of Section 30 of the Act with a further rider contained in the first proviso to the section that the appeal must involve substantial questions of law.

12. In other words, the appeal provided under Section 30 of the Act to the High Court against the order of the Commissioner is not like a regular first appeal akin to Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which can he heard both on facts and law. The appellate jurisdiction of the High Court to decide the appeal is confined only to examine the substantial questions of law arising in the case."

In the case of "Smt. Ram Sakhi Devi Vs. Chhatra Devi",

reported in JT 2005(6) SC 167, the Hon'ble Apex Court held

that without formulating substantial question of law appeal cannot

be sustained.

In "M/s Krishna Weaving Mills, Ajmer Vs. Smt.

Chandra Bhaga Devi wide of Mool Chand & Anr.", reported

in 1985(1) WLN 455, this Court while dealing with Workmen's

Compensation Act has laid down law that unless there is a

question of public importance and there is no final interpretation

available while the substantial question of law is arising, the

appeal under the Workmen's Compensation Act cannot be

entertained. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows:-

"8. Moreover, under S. 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act only substantial question of law can be agitated. In the present case, I am convinced that there is no substantial question of law involved.

9. The question of public importance and question on which no final interpretation is available are known as substantial question of law. Even if this definition is further extended, it will have to bear in mind that there is vast difference between the question of law and substantial question of law. It is only when the question of law is not well settled

(6 of 6) [CMA-1675/2016]

and it is of importance, it would become a substantial questions of law."

It is the settled position of law that limited jurisdiction has

been given to the High Court confined to the substantial question

of law only and the High Court cannot venture and reappreciate

the evidence and finding of fact recorded on the evidence led by

both the parties.

This Court find no good ground to call for any interference on

any of the factual findings. None of the factual findings are found

to be either perverse or arbitrary or based on no evidence or

against any provision of law. This Court accordingly uphold these

findings.

Since the appeal is not qualifying to have a substantial

question of law, which is mandatory under Section 30 of the

Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.