Rajasthan High Court

United India Isnurance Co Ltd vs Ranchhor Das A Nd Others on 19 January, 2023

Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

          S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4099/2012

United India Isnurance Co Ltd. through Manager, Jaipur having
its regional office at Sahara Chambers, tonk road Jaipur through
its constituted attorney.
                                                        ----Appellant/claimant
                                   Versus
1. Ranchoor Das Sankhla S/o Manga Ram Bagri
2. Smt. Mani W/o Ranchoor Das Sankhla
Residence of Village Bhat Mohalla Dudhiya Kuan ka pass,
Sanvatsar, Kishangar, Distt. Ajmer raj.
                                                 ----Respondents/claimants

3. Mohd. Suleman S/o Maheruddin C/o Jitendra Singh S/o Kanhaiyalal, Residence of House No.3480, Sutarkhana Mohalla Nasiarbad, Distt. Ajmer.

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Om Prakash Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ram Singh Rathore

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order

Order Reserved on :: 16.1.2023 Order Pronounced on :: 19.01.2023

This civil misc. appeal has been filed by the appellant u/s 30

of Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, the Act of 1923)

against the judgment dt. 14.8.2012 passed by learned Workmen

Compensation Commissioner, Ajmer in claim case no. WCA (F)

11/2011 Ranchhor Das vs. Mohd. Suleman and ors. whereby an

award of Rs.6,42, 666/- with interest @ 12% has been passed in

favour of the claimants respondents and against the appellant.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned

Commissioner wrongly allowed the claim petition filed by the

claimants. Learned counsel for the appellant has also submits that

there is no evidence that alleged accident took place and who had

(2 of 6) [CMA-4099/2012]

seen it. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is no

evidence that the deceased was employed as a Khalasi by the

owner of the insured vehicle. Learned counsel for the appellant

submits that alleged incident took place on 9.8.2010 but FIR was

lodged after an inordinate delay of 23 days i.e. on 2.9.2010. So,

appeal be allowed and judgment 14.8.2012 passed by Workmen

Compensation Commissioner, Ajmer be set aside.

Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the

judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Saurashtra Salt

Manufacturing vs. Bai Valu Raja and ors. reported in AIR 1958 SC

881 and Shankuntala Chandrakant Shreshti vs. Prabhakar Maruti

Garvali & anr. 2007 (1) TAC 1 (SC)

At the outset, counsel for the respondents submits that no

substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. The appeal

has been submitted on the findings of facts. In support of his

contentions, counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the

judgments delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases 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.

Learned counsel for the claimants has also relied upon the

judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of North East

Karnataka Road Transport Corporation vs. Sujatha reported in

2019 ACJ 29 and Dr. Harish Kumar vs. Dr. S.C. Gairola & ors.

reported in 2018 SCC Online Utt 1030 and Bhikha Ram vs. Sunil

Kumar & ors. reported in 2022 (2) CCR 784 (Raj.).

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned

judgment dated 14.8.2012 including the documents available on

the record.

(3 of 6) [CMA-4099/2012]

In the considered opinion of this Court, the findings given by

the learned Commissioner are based on sound appreciation of

evidence and the same are not liable to be disturbed by this

Court.

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

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

Supreme Court in the case of "Golla Rajanna Etc. vs. The

Divisional Manager And Anr." reported in 2017(1) SCC 45.

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 Court from the following orders of a Commissioner, namely:

(a) an order awarding as compensation a lumpsum 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 adeceased workman, or disallowing any claim of a person alleging himself to be such dependant;

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

(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 the appeal is notless than three hundred rupees (Emphasis supplied)

(4 of 6) [CMA-4099/2012]

10. Under the scheme 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.

"Similar view has been expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the

case of"North East Karnataka Transport Corporation Vs. Smt.

Sujatha" reported in 2019 (11) SCC 514. 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 they are proved either way, the findings recorded thereon are regarded as the findings of fact.

(5 of 6) [CMA-4099/2012]

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 theorder 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 factsand 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 "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 as 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 been 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. Itis only when the question of law is not well settled and it is of

(6 of 6) [CMA-4099/2012]

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 re-

appreciate 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 upholds 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, therefore, no interference is

called for in this appeal and the same is dismissed.