Dismissed

The Branch Manager United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Parwati Devi and Anr.

Allahabad HC23 Sept 2022FAFO/419/1997

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appellant insurance company challenged the Workmen Commissioner's order denying the claim that the deceased lacked a driving licence. Dismissing the appeal, the Court held the defence under Section 147 was unavailable on facts not proved perverse and affirmed the concurrent findings that the deceased was a skilled employee entitled to compensation.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed. The so-called questions of law were answered against the appellant. The Insurance Company was directed to disburse the acknowledged amount immediately.

The Branch Manager United India Insurance Co. Ltd… — Motor Accident Claims | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 44

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 419 of 1997

¶3

Appellant :- The Branch Manager United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Respondent :- Smt. Parwati Devi And Anr. Counsel for Appellant :- S.K. Jaiswal

¶4

Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the appellant. None has appeared for claimants.

¶6

The moot question which arises is whether the provision of Section 147 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 would be applicable and can the insurance company avoid its liability on the ground that the deceased was not having driving licence.

¶7

While going through the record, it is very clear that the insurance company has not proved that the deceased was not having driving licence. The owner has appeared before the commissioner and contended that the deceased was a skilled driver and was employed by owner.

¶8

The factual data available before this Court is that the owner had accepted that the deceased was employed by him. The liability under the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 and the liability under the Act, 1923 and on the judgment of Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Poonam Kesarwani and others, 2008 LawSuit (All) 1557 will enure for the benefit of the claimant and owner.

¶9

Further the provision of Section 147 of M.V. Act. and the defence raised therein would not be available unless it falls in the realm of question of law in the facts narrated by the claimant and the findings recorded by the Commissioner though assailed by the appellant herein are such which cannot be said to be either perverse or such which will permit the insurance company to avoid its liability under the Workman Commissioner Act. The provisions of Motor Vehicle Act and Workman Compensation Act are different. The Commissioner has given a categorical finding of fact that the driver employed by the owner was a skilled employee. This court is supported in its view by the recent judgment of Apex Court dealing with such matters wherein it has been held that unless it is proved that the facts and finding of facts are perverse, the court should not in normal circumstances interfered with finding of facts. In our case also what is assailed are finding of facts which are not

¶10

proved to be perverse.

¶11

The appeal under Workmen Compensation Act/Employees State Insurance 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 of 30%.

¶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

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

¶18

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."

¶19

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

¶20

Interim relief, if any, shall stand vacated forthwith. The amount be disbursed to the claimant forthwith if yet not disbursed.

¶21

This Court is thankful to the counsel for the appellant.

¶22

Order Date :- 23.9.2022 Mukesh

¶23

Digitally signed by MUKESH SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.10.15 15:50:51 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

The Branch Manager United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Parwati Devi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Branch Manager United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Parwati Devi and Anr.

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

United India Insurance Company Vs Raja Singh

Rajdeo Prasad Vs M/S Continental Fleat Glass Ltd. Bargarh Banda and Others

The New India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Vijai Laxmi and Others

U.P.State Electricity Board Vs Smt. Shukla Devi and Others

S. Ahmad Vs Smt. Tahida Begam

M/S Mega Industries Vs Zakir Ali