National Insurance Co Ltd vs Badri And Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 3318 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

          S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4850/2009

National Insurance Co Ltd., Branch Chhawani, Jaipur Road, Tonk
through Regional Office at, Ambedkar Circle, Jeeven Nidhi L.I.C.
Building, Bhawani Singh Marg, Jaipur
                                                                   ----Appellant
                                   Versus
1. Bardi W/o Shri Ramswaroop aged about 35 years, R/o
Phuleta, Tehsil Uniyara, District Tonk (Rajasthan)
                                                         Claimant/Respondent

2. Ratan Lal Meena S/o Shri Kanhiya Lal Meena, R/o Village Arniya Ghati, Tehsil & District Tonk (Raj.)

---Defendant/Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rahul Joshi, Adv. on behalf of Mr. S. R. Joshi, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sunil Jain, Adv.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

Judgment

Date of Judgment 08/08/2023

Instant appeal has been filed by the appellant/defendant-

National Insurance Company (for short 'the Insurance Company')

under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923

against the judgment and award dated 16.07.2009 passed by the

Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, Tonk in Case

No.W.C.C./N.F./67/2005 (for short 'the Commissioner'), whereby

the claimant-respondent workman (for short 'the claimant') has

been held entitled to get Rs. 1,95,696/- alongwith interest @ 12

percent per annum from the date of incident i.e. 29.05.2005.

Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the

Commissioner has erred in passing the judgment and award in

(2 of 3) [CMA-4850/2009]

favour of claimant. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company

further submits that the Commissioner has committed serious

error in appreciating the fact that the Insurance Company is liable

to pay the amount of compensation. Learned counsel for the

Insurance Company also submits that the tractor was insured for

agricultural purposes under the Farmer's Package Policy but trolly

was not insured. Tractor was used for commercial purposes as the

stones were carried in it which was not an agricultural activity. So,

the Commissioner has wrongly allowed the claim application filed

by the claimant. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company

further submits that the tractor number was not mentioned in the

FIR. Claimant was under the employment of respondent No.2-

Ratan Lal Meena. Claimant concocted the story to get the claim

amount. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company further

submits that the Commissioner has wrongly assessed the income

of the claimant as Rs.3,900/- per month. Learned counsel for the

appellant also submits that the Commissioner has wrongly

assessed the disability of the claimant as 40%, whereas as per

disability certificate, claimant sustained only 26.74% permanent

disability. So, the judgment and award passed by the

Commissioner may be set-aside.

Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has placed

reliance upon the following judgments:-(1) Pappoo Vs. Om

Prakash & Others reported in 2001 ACJ 1525; (2) Oriental

Insurance Company Limited Vs. Brij Mohan & Others

reported in 2007 ACJ 1909; (3) National Insurance

Company Limited Vs. V. Chinnamma & Others reported in

2004 ACJ 1909.

(3 of 3) [CMA-4850/2009]

Learned counsel for the claimant has opposed the arguments

advanced by learned counsel for the Insurance Company and

submitted that there is no legal issue to be decided on factual

ground. So, no appeal lies against the judgment and award passed

by the Commissioner. The Commissioner has rightly came to the

conclusion that the claimant was engaged as a labour in the

tractor-trolly No. R.J. No.26 R 6956 and the said tractor trolly was

being used for agricultural purposes. So, the present appeal filed

by the appellant may be dismissed.

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the

claimant.

The Commissioner while deciding the claim application

rightly came to the conclusion that the claimant was engaged as a

labour in the tractor-trolly No. R.J. No.26 R 6956 and the said

tractor trolly was being used for agricultural purposes and rightly

assessed the income of the claimant as Rs.3,900/- per month. So,

the present appeal being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed,

which stands dismissed accordingly.

Pending application(s), if any, stand(s), disposed of.

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

Gourav/192

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)