Dismissed

Employees State Insurance Corp. Kanpur v. Kamta Saran

Allahabad HC27 Sept 2019FAFO/1739/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This First Appeal dismissed the Employer's challenge against the compensation order awarding 41% loss of earning capacity. The Court held that the appeal involved questions of fact, not substantial questions of law, and factual findings of lower courts are binding.

What did the court decide?

The appellant's appeal is dismissed. Framework questions raised by the appellant are answered against it. Interim relief is vacated.

Employees State Insurance Corp. Kanpur Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 33

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1739 of 2001 Appellant :- Employees State Insurance Corp. Kanpur Respondent :- Kamta Saran Counsel for Appellant :- ,Jyotsna Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- A.K. Sachan,Ranjeet Kumar Mishra,Satish Verma

¶3

Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.

¶4

Heard Sri Jyotsna Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant and perused the judgment and order impugned. None appeared for the respondent.

¶5

This appeal, at the behest of the Employees State Insurance Corporation, challenges the judgment and order dated 18.9.2001 passed by Judge, Employees State Insurance Court, Kanpur Nagar in Appeal No. 15 of 2000 awarding 41% loss of earning capacity.

¶6

It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the judgment and order passed by the E.I. Court, Kanpur Nagar cannot be sustained as there is a manifest error of law as the appeal was beyond time. The E.I. Court should not have reassessed the injuries on the basis of report of Orthopaedic Surgeon.

¶7

It is submitted that the Medical Board which is body of expert who have given their decision and assessed the injuries, the E.I. Court could not have reassessed the disability and the judgment in Munshi Giri Vs. Employees State Insurance Corporation, 1988 LTC 320 is not applicable.

¶8

The Medical Board had opined that there was disability of 28%. However, while going through the record, it is clear that the Court below saw that he was having multiple fracture of his metacarpal proximal phalanges and, therefore, opined

¶9

¶10

that there was more than 50% disability as per the provisions of the Schedule of the Act.

¶11

I am supported in my view Golla Rajanna Etc. Etc. Vs. Divisional Manager and Another, 2017 (1) TAC 259 (SC) and the decision of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.7470 of 2009 North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs. Smt. Sujatha decided on 2.11.2018 wherein it has been held that the Court has held as under:

¶12

"15. Such appeal is then heard on the question of admission with a view to find out as to whether it involves any substantial question of law or not. Whether the appeal involves a substantial question of law or not depends upon the facts of each case and needs an examination by the High Court. If the substantial question of law arises, the High Court would admit the appeal for final hearing on merit else would dismiss in limini with reasons that it does not involve any substantial question/s of law.

¶13

16. Now coming to the facts of this case, we find that the appeal before the High Court did not involve any substantial question of law on the material questions set out above. In other words, in our view, the Commissioner decided all the material questions arising in the case properly on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties and rightly determined the compensation payable to the respondent. It was, therefore, rightly affirmed by the High Court on facts.

¶14

17. In this view of the matter, the findings being concurrent findings of fact of the two courts below are binding on this Court. Even otherwise, we 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. We accordingly uphold these findings."

¶15

This Court, recently in F.A.F.O. 1070 of 1993 (E.S.I.C.

¶16

Vs. S. Prasad) decided on 26.10.2017 has followed the decision in Golla Rajana (Supra) and has held as follows:

¶17

"The grounds urged before this Court are in the realm of finding of facts and not a question of law. As far as question of law is concerned, the aforesaid judgment in Golla Rajanna Etc. Etc. Versus Divisional Manager and another (supra) in paragraph 8 holds as follows "the Workman Compensation Commissioner is the last authority on facts. The Parliament has thought it fit to restrict the scope of the appeal only to substantial questions of law, being a welfare legislation. Unfortunately, the High Court

¶18

¶19

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."

¶20

In view of the above, the appeal fails and is dismissed. The show called questions of law framed by the Insurance Company are answered against it. In fact, the substantial questions of law raised, are the questions of fact.

¶21

Interim relief, if any, shall stand vacated forthwith.

¶22

This Court is thankful to the counsel for the appellant for getting this very old matter disposed of.

¶23

Order Date :- 27.9.2019 DKS

Employees State Insurance Corp. Kanpur v. Kamta Saran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Employees State Insurance Corp. Kanpur v. Kamta Saran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs Smt. Chunna Devi and Others

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Sheela and Others

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt.Sheela and Others

Smt. Savitri Devi and Others Vs the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Ors.

Kumari Iti Agarwal Vs Sri Ganesh Pal and Others

Devendra Kumar Vs Wazid Ali and Another