Dismissed

New India Assurance Co.Ltd. v. Smt.Chandra Devi and Another

Allahabad HC2 Aug 2019FAFO/937/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An appeal by an insurance company against a workmen's compensation award was dismissed. The single judge held that the Commissioner's findings of fact were binding and not perverse, following Supreme Court precedents restricting appellate interference to questions of law. The claim for enhancement was rejected.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed, interim relief was vacated, and the Commissioner's award was upheld.

New India Assurance Co.Ltd. Vs Smt.Chandra Devi and… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 33

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 937 of 2000

¶3

Appellant :- New India Assurance Co.Ltd. Respondent :- Smt.Chandra Devi And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ramesh Singh,Ramesh Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ramesh Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and perused the judgment and order impugned.

¶6

This appeal, at the behest of the New India Assurance Company Limited, has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 22.05.2000 passed by Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Kanpur in W.C. Case No. 55 of 1998 awarding a sum of Rs.1,81,800/- as compensation with interest.

¶7

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).

¶8

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:

¶9

"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 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."

¶10

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:

¶11

"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

¶12

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

The learned counsel for the appellant has further contended that the award is bad and he has further relied on decision of the Apex Court in Kishan Gopal and another v. Lala and others, 2013 (101) ALR 281 (SC) , and Manju Devi's case, reported in 2005 (1) TAC 609 , as relied by this Court in its recent decision in United India Insurance Company Limited. Vs. Mumtaz Ahmad and Another, 2017 (2) AICC 1229 wherein this Court held as follows:

¶16

"6.Sri Ram Singh has heavily relied on the decision in th case of Kishan Gopal and another v. Lala and others, 2013 (101) ALR 281 (SC) = 2013 (131) AIC 219 = 2014 (1) AICC 208 (SC) and Manju Devi's case, 2005 (1) TAC 609 = 2005 AICC 208 (SC). It goes without saying the notional figure fixed by the Apex Court since Manju Devi's judgment has been consistently Rs.2,25,000 for children below the age of 15 years. I think that is just and proper and hence, the amount requires to be enhanced from Rs.1,57,000 to Rs.2,25,000 with 6% be recovered from the owner. The appeal is partly allowed. The cross-objection is also partly allowed."

¶17

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.

¶18

In view of the above, the appeal fails and is dismissed.

¶19

Interim relief, if any, shall stand vacated forthwith.

¶20

This Court is thankful to Sri Ramesh Singh, learned counsel for appellant for getting very old matter disposed of.

¶21

Order Date :- 2.8.2019

¶22

Shubhankar

New India Assurance Co.Ltd. v. Smt.Chandra Devi and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

New India Assurance Co.Ltd. v. Smt.Chandra Devi 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

Smt.Swaroopi Devi and Others Vs Sheo Dan Singh and Others

Babu Lal and Another Vs Dinesh Kumar and Another

Sirajuddin and Others Vs Radhey Shyam Bansal and Others

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Munesh and Others

Smt.Ashok Kuamri and Others Vs Manjeet Singh and Another

U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs Krishana Joshi and Others