Dismissed

Employees State Insurance Corprn.Thru Its Regional Director v. Shaqoor Kanpur

Allahabad HC29 Sept 2022FAFO/1525/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the First Appeal filed by the ESI Corporation. The Court held that the E.I. Court's finding on the disability was a question of fact, not perverse. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court ruled that without perversity, it could not disturb the lower court's fact-finding.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed. The questions of law are answered against the Insurance Company. Interim relief is vacated, and the amount is to be disbursed to the claimant.

Employees State Insurance Corprn.Thru Its… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 44

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1525 of 2001

¶3

Appellant :- Employees State Insurance Corprn.Thru Its Regional Director Respondent :- Shaqoor Kanpur Counsel for Appellant :- Saral Srivastava,Rajesh Tewari

¶4

Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Rajesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant.

¶6

Without adverting to the facts, it is clear that the order of the learned Commissioner, E.I. Court is challenged, challenging the disability of the insured person. This fact is a question of fact, the finding of fact is neither perverse nor explicable. It is an admitted position of fact that there was employment injury. The factor applied cannot be said to be such which is said to be perverse. Injuries were assessed by the E.I. Court. The claim petition was allowed and injured has been disabled which would reduce his working capacity. These are the questions of facts. Order of the E.I Court does not spell out any perversity.

¶7

Recently the Apex Court in the judgment in Golla Rajanna Etc. Etc. Vs. Divisional Manager and Another, 2017 (1) TAC 259 (SC) and later on 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 under Section 30, the High Court cannot enter into the arena of facts unless they are proved to be perverse.

¶8

In this matter learned Sri Rajesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant though has vehemently submitted is not been able to show that the finding is perverse.

¶9

In that view of the matter, this Court even supported in its view in the judgment of the Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Company Vs. Siby George and Others, 2012 (4) T.A.C. 4 (S.C.) and the F.A.F.O No. 2748 of 2019 dated 15.10.2019.

¶10

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.

¶11

This Court is thankful to Sri Rajesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant for ably assisting this Court.

¶12

Interim relief, if any, shall stand vacated forthwith. The amount be disbursed to the claimant forthwith.

¶13

Order Date :- 29.9.2022/PS

¶14

Digitally signed by POOJA SHARMA Date: 2022.10.01 16:28:04 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Employees State Insurance Corprn.Thru Its Regional Director v. Shaqoor Kanpur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Employees State Insurance Corprn.Thru Its Regional Director v. Shaqoor Kanpur

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

Rizwan Khan Vs State of U.P.

Abhishek Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Mukesh Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 3 Otehrs

E.S.I. Corp. Vs Surendra Kumar Dixit

Employee State Insurence Corp. Vs Iqbal Shanker

E.S.I. Corp. Kanpur Vs Ram Naresh