Dismissed

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt.Surekha and Others

Allahabad HC22 Sept 2022FAFO/611/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appellate court dismissed the appellant's appeal against an award of workmen's compensation for the death of an employee. The court held that the disputes were purely questions of fact and the lower authorities' findings were binding.

What did the court decide?

The appeal failed and was dismissed; the substantial questions of law were answered against the appellant; interim relief vacated; amount deposited to be disbursed to claimants.

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt.Surekha… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 44

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 611 of 2000

¶3

Appellant :- Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Respondent :- Smt.Surekha And Others Counsel for Appellant :- K.S.Amist

¶4

Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.

¶5

This appeal at the behest of the Insurance Company challenges the judgment and award dated 10.12.1999 of the Workmen Compensation Commissioner/Muzaffarnagar in Case No.17/WCA/98 (hereinafter referred to as 'Commissioner'). The Commissioner awarded a sum of Rs.1,95,652/- for the death of young son of the claimant who died during the course of employment.

¶6

The sole ground raised is that the Insurance Company could not have been saddled with the liability. Sri K.S. Amist, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the award is bad in the eye of law. It is stated that as the deceased died homicidal death namely, murder, occurred on 25.4.1998, it cannot be said that he died due to employment injuries. Unfortunately, this appeal has remained pending for a long time. The answer to this question whether a murder can be said to give rise a case under Workmen's Compensation Act, is covered by judgment of the Apex Court in Rita Devi Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited, LAWS(SC)2000 4 99 .

¶7

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%.

¶8

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:

¶9

"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

¶10

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.

¶11

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.

¶12

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."

¶13

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:

¶14

"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."

¶15

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.

¶16

Interim relief, if any, stands vacated forthwith. The amount deposited with the Commissioner be immediately disbursed to the claimants.

¶17

Order Date :- 22.9.2022/Mukesh

¶18

Digitally signed by MUKESH SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.10.12 18:48:37 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt.Surekha and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt.Surekha and Others

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

Shri Masha Allah Vs Shri Pradeep Gupta and Another

Executive Engineer and Another Vs Sri Dinesh Kumar

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Shanti Devi and Another

Latifan Vs Dr. A.K. Singhal

United India Insurance Company Vs Raja Singh

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