Dismissed

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jai Pal and Another

Allahabad HC24 Sept 2019FAFO/19/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the appeal by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited against the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner's award. The Court held that the dispute concerned findings of fact regarding the percentage of disability, which are binding on the appellate court unless perverse. No substantial question of law was found.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; show cause questions framed by the Insurance Company were answered against the appellant.

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Jai Pal and Another — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 33

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 19 of 2004

¶3

Appellant :- Oriental Insurance Co Ltd Respondent :- Jai Pal And Another Counsel for Appellant :- S.K. Mehrotra Counsel for Respondent :- Vikash Pathak

¶4

Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.

¶5

Heard Sri S.K. Mehrotra, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Vikash Pathak, learned counsel for respondent and perused the judgment and order impugned.

¶6

This appeal, at the behest of the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, has been preferred against the judgment and decree/award dated 17.11.2003 passed by Workmen's Compensation Commissioner/Assistant Labour Commissioner, Meerut (hereinafter referred to as 'Commissioner') in W.C.P. No. 35 of 2003 awarding a sum of Rs.71,784/- as compensation with 9% rate of interest.

¶7

Brief facts are that the Chief Medical Officer issued a certificate that the conductor i.e. injured got injured by the bus. He suffered injuries out of the said employment injury. He was 34 years of age. The employment injury was not in dispute. What is in dispute is the grant of compensation considering his employment injury to 24%. Can this be considered to be bad and perverse finding?

¶8

The appeal under Workmen Compensation Act has to be viewed very seriously in view of the judgment in Golla Rajanna Etc. Etc. Vs. Divisional Manager and Another, 2017 (1) TAC 259 (SC). The finding of fact is that the injured was an employee who had sustained employment injury and was incapacitated to the tune 55%.

¶9

5 . The Apex Court recently in Golla Rajanna Etc. Etc. Vs. Divisional Manager and Another, 2017 (1) TAC 259 (SC) and this High Court in F.A.F.O. 1070 of 1993 (E.S.I.C. Vs. S. Prasad) decided on 26.10.2017 has held as follows:

¶10

"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

¶11

thought it fit to restrict the scope of the appeal only to substantial questions 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."

¶12

I am supported in my view by 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:

¶13

"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.

¶14

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.

¶15

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."

¶16

The factual data available before this Court is that the owner had accepted that the injured was employed by it. It is rightly held by the Commissioner that under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1923') these defences cannot be allowed to defeat the claimants' claim and absolve the Insurance Company from its liability.

¶17

In view of the above, the appeal fails and is dismissed. The show called questions of law framed by the Insurance Company

¶18

are answered against it. In fact the substantial questions of law raised are the questions of fact.

¶19

Interim relief, if any, shall stand vacated forthwith. Order Date :- 24.9.2019 LN Tripathi

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jai Pal and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jai Pal and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs Smt. Ramwati Devi and Others

Smt. Reshma Khatoon and Another Vs Noor Mohammad and Others

Umesh Kant Pandey Vs Ramkatore Pandey and 13 Others

United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Mukesh Kumar Gupta and Others

Krishna Lal Chhabra Vs Kailash Nath and Others

Smt. Kusum Alias Kusum Devi and Others Vs the New India Insurence Company Ltd. and Others