The single bench dismissed the appeal as sans merit, holding that grounds raising factual questions cannot be examined since the Workmen Compensation Commissioner is the last authority on facts.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 44
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 431 of 1996
Appellant :- The United India Insurance Co.Ltd. Respondent :- Smt.Rahisa Begum And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Ashok Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Saurabh Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent.
By way of this appeal the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. has felt aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 30.03.1996 passed by A.D.M./Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Bulandshahar, W.C. Case No. 40 of 1994.
The accident took place on 27.1.1994 by a Truck, bearing No.HR-29-A-0307, which was driven by Naeem due to which the aforesaid driver received injuries resulting in his demise. The compensation claimed before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Bulandshahar, was amounting to Rs. 6,12,000/- which was decided on 30.03.1996. Against the aforesaid order, the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. has come up to this Court.
The grounds raised in this appeal are infact the question of fact which cannot gone into in view of judgment of the Apex Court recently in Golla Rajanna Etc. Etc. Vs. Divisional Manager and Another, 2017 (1) TAC 259 (SC) and this High Court in FAFO 1070 of 1993 (E.S.I.C. Vs. S. Prasad) decided on 26.10.2017 has held as follows:
" 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. "
In view of the above, this appeal sans merit and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 15.9.2022 Irshad
Digitally signed by IRSHAD AHMAD SIDDIQUI Date: 2022.09.21 10:04:34 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appeal grounds regarding facts can be examined by this court given the Apex Court's precedent on Workmen Compensation Commissioner as the last authority on facts.
Whether the Court can re-appreciate evidence regarding percentage of disability.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Golla Rajanna Etc. Etc. Vs. Divisional Manager and AnotherReferred¶8
Golla Rajanna Etc. Etc. Vs. Divisional Manager and Another, 2017 (1) TAC 259 (SC)
E.S.I.C. Vs. S. PrasadReferred¶8
E.S.I.C. Vs. S. Prasad, FAFO 1070 of 1993
The United India Insurance Co.Ltd.
Smt.Rahisa Begum And Others
Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
