Dismissed

The Oriental Insurance Companyl Ltd. v. Sri Fayyaz Khan and Others

Allahabad HC12 Jan 2023FAFO/258/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed an appeal by the appellant insurance company against a Workmen's Compensation Award. Upholding the Commissioner's factual finding that the deceased was an employee, the Court held that the issues raised were questions of fact and not sufficient to interfere under Section 30. Ordered immediate disbursement of the award plus interest.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; interim relief vacated; award amount to be disbursed forthwith with interest.

The Oriental Insurance Companyl Ltd. Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 44

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 258 of 2003

¶3

Appellant :- The Oriental Insurance Companyl Ltd. Respondent :- Sri Fayyaz Khan And Others Counsel for Appellant :- V.C. Dixit,Amit Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Amit Singh, learned counsel for the appellant.

¶6

By way of this appeal, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd has challenged the judgment and award dated 2.12.2002 passed by Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Ghaziabad Region in WCA No. 18 of 1998 awarding compensation of Rs. 2,09,920/with interest at the rate of 12% to the father of the deceased.

¶7

It is submitted by Sri Amit Singh, learned counsel for the appellant that owner did not appear neither was any documentary evidence produced so as to prove the employment only on the oral version of the legal heirs of the deceased and P.W.-2, the learned Commissioner has came to the conclusion that the deceased was employed as an employee. The learned Commissioner has considered the F.I.R and postmortem report, receipt register, notice as well as driving licence of the deceased and the evidence of P.W.-1, the widow of the deceased and P.W.-2 and has came to the conclusion that deceased was driver employed by respondent no. 1. This being a question of fact so it cannot be said that the said finding is perverse so as exonerate the insurance company. The insurance company did not laid any evidence to prove that the assertion made by the widow of the deceased that in 1997 the accident took place and he was 29 years of age at the time of accident. In that view of the matter this Court can not embark on appreciating facts. She has withstood the cross-examination and has mentioned that there were several trucks owned by the respondent and on which number her husband was send that would not be known to her.

¶8

At the outset, it is relevant to discuss the scope of this Court to entertain appeal against the award of Workmen's Compensation Commissioner. The Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.7470 of 2009 North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs. Smt. Sujatha decided on 2.11.2018 has held as under :

¶9

"9. At the outset, we may take note of the fact, being a settled principle, that the question as to whether the employee met with an accident, whether the accident occurred during the course of

¶10

employment, whether it arose out of an employment, how and in what manner the accident occurred, who was negligent in causing the accident, whether there existed any relationship of employee and employer, what was the age and monthly salary of the employee, how many are the dependents of the deceased employee due to injuries suffered in an accident, whether there was any insurance coverage obtained by the employer to cover the incident etc. are some of the material issues which arise for the just decision of the Commissioner in a claim petition when an employee suffers any bodily injury or dies during the course of his employment and he/his LRS sue/s his employer to claim compensation under the Act.

¶11

10. The aforementioned questions are essentially the questions of fact and, therefore, they are required to be proved with the aid of evidence. Once, they are proved either way, the findings recorded thereon are regarded as findings of fact."

¶12

The Apex Court further went on to hold 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

As far as present appeal is concerned, the findings of the Commissioner on the said issues are not perverse. As far as

¶17

question of interest is concerned, the same is answered against the Insurance Company in view of the decision of the Apex Court in North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Case (Supra). In Golla Rajanna Etc. Etc. Vs. Divisional Manager and Another, 2017 (1) TAC 259 (SC) also 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.

¶18

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.

¶19

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

¶20

9.This Court is thankful to Sri Amit Singh, learned counsel for the appellant for ably assisting this Court.

¶21

Order Date :- 12.1.2023 PS

¶22

Digitally signed by :- POOJA SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

The Oriental Insurance Companyl Ltd. v. Sri Fayyaz Khan and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Oriental Insurance Companyl Ltd. v. Sri Fayyaz Khan 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

Smt Sadapyari and Ors. Vs Rajes Kumar and Another

Smt. Akhtari Begum Vs Ram Kumar Trivedi and Others

Smt. Norin Vs Digvijai Tripathi and Another

Shailendra Bahadur Vs State of U.P. and Another

Virendar Alias Bijainder Vishwakarma Vs Buddu Lal Vishwakarma

Vijayee Vs M/S Deoria Papaer Mill Narainpur Hata Road Deoria