Rajasthan High Court

Hdfc Ergo Gen Insurance Co Ltd vs Jagdish Prasad And Another on 16 February, 2024

Author: Narendra Singh Dhaddha

Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

          S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4878/2016

Jagdish Prasad Son of Bhagwanaram, Resident of Village Dujod,
Tehsil & District Sikar (Raj.)
                                                                   ----Appellant
                                   Versus
1. Ramniwas Son of Savantaram, Resident of Salasar, Tehsil
Sujangarh, District Churu (Raj.) (Registered owner of Vehicle
Tractor No.RJ-07-RA-2393)
2. H.D.F.C., E.R.G.O. General Insurance Co. Ltd., (Insurance Co.
of Vehicle Tractor No.RJ-07-RA-2393)
                                                                ----Respondents

Connected With S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4694/2016 H.D.F.C., E.R.G.O. General Insurance Co. Ltd., having it's Local Office 406, Luhadiya Tower, Ashok Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur having its regional office at N-22, Second Floor, Sector 18, Noida-201301 through its constituted attorney.

----Appellant Versus

1. Jagdish Prasad Son of Bhagwanaram, Resident of Village Dujod, Tehsil & District Sikar (Raj.)

2. Ramniwas Son of Savantaram, Resident of Salasar, Tehsil Sujangarh, District Churu (Raj.) (Owner of Tractor No.RJ-07-RA- 2393)

----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Gajender Sharma, Adv. for claimants For Respondent(s) : Mr. Virendra Agarwal, Adv. for insurance company

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

Judgment

Date Of Judgment 16/02/2024

(2 of 6) [CMA-4878/2016]

These Civil Misc. Appeals have arisen out of the judgment

dated 27.06.2016 passed by learned Workmen Compensation

Commissioner, Sikar (for short 'learned Commissioner') in claim

case No.WCC/NF/29/2011 titled as Jagdish Prasad Vs. Ram Niwas

& Anr., whereby an amount of Rs.3,97,807/- alongwith interest @

12% per annum from the date of accident has been awarded and

Rs.13500/- has also been awarded for medical expenses in favour

of the claimant-Jagdish Prasad (for short 'the claimant') as

compensation.

CMA No.4878/2016 has been filed by the claimant seeking

enhancement of compensation awarded by learned Commissioner

whereas CMA No.4694/2016 has been filed by the Insurance

Company challenging the judgment dated 27.06.2016 passed by

the learned Commissioner on the various grounds.

CMA No. 4878/2016-Learned counsel for the claimant

submits that learned Commissioner has wrongly awarded the

compensation a sum of Rs.3,97,807/- along with interest @ 12%

per annum only from the date of accident. Learned counsel for

the claimant also submits that due to said accident, the claimant

sustained 60% permanent disability, but The Tribunal has only

awarded Rs.13,500/- towards medical expenses. He further

submits that income of the claimant was Rs.8,000/- per month

but the Tribunal assessed his income as Rs.6,000/- per month

only. The Tribunal has also not followed the schedule as prescribed

in M.V. Act. So, judgment of the learned Commissioner may be

modified accordingly.

CMA No. 4694/2016-learned counsel for the Insurance

Company submits that learned Commissioner has wrongly allowed

(3 of 6) [CMA-4878/2016]

the claim petition filed by the claimant. Learned counsel for the

Insurance Company also submits that there was no employer-

employee relationship between the claimant and owner of the

vehicle. Therefore, the finding of the learned Commissioner is per

se illegal and unreasonable. So, appeal be allowed and judgment

passed by learned Commissioner be set aside.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned

judgment including the documents available on the 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 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. (supra):

"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 a deceased workman, or disallowing any claim of a person alleging himself to 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-4878/2016]

(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 the appeal is not less than three hundred rupees (Emphasis supplied)

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 (supra):

"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

(5 of 6) [CMA-4878/2016]

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.

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 "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

(6 of 6) [CMA-4878/2016]

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 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 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 appeals are not qualifying to have a substantial

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