Dismissed

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Palanti Devi and Others

Allahabad HC5 Jan 2023FAFO/3222/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against a compensation award to the deceased's wife, the High Court overturned a High Court order that had allowed an appeal against the Commissioner's factual findings, holding the Commissioner as the last authority on facts in welfare legislation.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of High Court dated 20.10.2003 setting aside Commissioner's award is set aside; compensation amount to be disbursed.

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

¶1

Court No. - 44

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 3222 of 2003

¶3

Appellant :- Oriental Insurance Co Ltd Respondent :- Smt. Palanti Devi And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Kuldip Shanker Amist Counsel for Respondent :- Siddharth

¶4

Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Kuldip Shanker Amist, learned counsel for the appellant. Despite notice, none has appeared for the respondent.

¶6

This appeal, at the behest of the Oriental Insurance Co Ltd, the judgment and order dated 20.10.2003 passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Meerut, allowing Rs. 3,38,880/- as compensation along-with interest @ 10 % per annum from the date of accident till date to the claimantrespondent Nos. 1 and 2 against the appellant in Case No. W.C.A. 41 of 2003.

¶7

Brief facts are that the deceased/husband of the Respondent No. 1 was declared dead on 21.07.2022 due to road accident of the truck and the deceased was severely injured and the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Meerut awarded compensation to the wife of the deceased.

¶8

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 deceased was an employee who had succumbed to his injury while being treated in hospital after the accident.

¶9

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:

¶10

"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

¶11

limini with reasons that it does not involve any substantial question/s of law.

¶12

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.

¶13

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 findi ngs."

¶14

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:

¶15

"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."

¶16

In view of the above, the appeal fails and is dismissed. The so called questions of law framed by the Oriental Insurance Co Ltd are answered against it. In fact the substantial questions of law raised are the questions of fact.

¶17

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

¶18

Order Date :- 5.1.2023 Mohit/Imtiyaz

¶19

Digitally signed by :- MOHIT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Palanti Devi and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Palanti Devi 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Nawabuddin and Others

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Savitri Devi and Others

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kalu Ram Deceased and Others

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Saroj Devi and Others

Divisional Manager National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Om Prakash and Another

Rakesh Kumar Vs the National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr.