Dismissed

Bajaj Allianze General Insuran v. Shafi Mohammad and Ors.

Rajasthan HC6 Nov 2017CMA/1695/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal against a Workmen’s Compensation Award. The Court held that the Commissioner was the last authority on facts under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, and no substantial question of law arose to justify re-appreciating evidence or questioning the disability assessment.

What did the court decide?

Appeal and stay application dismissed; award upholds 60% loss of earning capacity against 30% disability.

Bajaj Allianze General Insuran Vs Shafi… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1695 / 2009

¶3

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., having its Registered Office at GE Plaza, Airport Road, Yarawada, Pune411006 and having its Regional Office at O-12 A, Ashok Marg, C- Scheme, Jaipur through its Constituent Attorney.

¶4

----Non-Claimant/Appellant

¶5

Versus 1. Shafi Mohammad S/o Shri Ise Khan, aged about 22 years R/o Village Naugawan, Teh Tijara, Distt. Alwar (Rajasthan).

¶6

----Claimant/Respondent

¶7

Pawan Yadav S/o Shri Mamchand, R/o 247 A, Sarai Pipal

¶8

Thala, P.S. Adresh Nagar, Delhi at present Shop No.40, Transport Nagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan) (Owner of Truck No.RJ 14 G.B. 1892)

¶9

….Non-claimant/Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Virendra Agarwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Santosh Kumar Soni on behalf of Mr. Ram Singh Rathore

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

¶11

Judgment

¶12

06/11/2017

¶13

The instant appeal has been filed against the order dated 19.01.2009 passed by the Commissioner Workmen’s Compensation, Jaipur District, Jaipur-II, Jaipur in Case No. WCCNF/275/2007.

¶14

Brief facts of the case are that the claimant-respondent filed a claim application on 27.07.2007 before the Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Jaipur District, Jaipur under Section

¶15

[CMA-1695 / 2009]

¶16

(2 of 5)

¶17

22 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 against the appellant and respondent No.2 claiming compensation on account of alleged loss suffered by him due to injuries sustained by him in the road accident occurred on 17.07.2007 during the course of employment when he was working as khalasi on Truck No.RJ 14 GB 1892 which was owned by respondent No.2 and was insured with the appellant insurance company. The claimant came with the case that he sustained injuries over his body and at the time of accident he was 20 years old and getting Rs.4000/- per month salary. It was further alleged that he sustained injuries during the course of his employment and arising out of an accident, therefore, prayed for awarding the compensation.

¶18

The appellant-insurance company submitted reply to the claim application denying the averments. It was specifically pleaded that the claim petition deserves to be dismissed since no notice under Section 10 of the Act of 1923 was served and the accident did not take place during the course of the employment. Lastly prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

¶19

The only contention raised by counsel for the appellant is that as per the disability certificate, the claimant has received 30% permanent disability whereas the learned Commissioner has wrongly considered the loss of earning capacity as 60% while deciding the compensation.

¶20

Counsel for the respondent supported the judgment passed by the Commissioner.

¶21

Heard counsel for the parties.

¶22

[CMA-1695 / 2009]

¶23

(3 of 5)

¶24

The arguments raised by counsel for the appellant that the Commissioner wrongly decided the loss of earning capacity as 60% is not acceptable as the Commissioner after recording the evidence given a finding on issue No.1 ad 2 in favour of the claimants. In my opinion, the Commissioner is the last authority on facts as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of

¶25

Golla Rajanna and Others Vs. Divisional Manager decided

¶26

on 23.11.2016 reported in (2017) 1 Supreme Court Cases Page 45 in which para para 8, 9 and 10 the Supreme Court held as under:-

¶27

“8. Section 30 of the Act provides for appeals to the High Court. To the extent, the provision reads as follows:

¶28

Appeals.-(1) An appeal shall lie to the High Court from the following orders of a Commissioner, namely:

¶29

(a) an order awarding as compensation a lump sum whether by way of redemption of a halfmonthly payment or otherwise or disallowing a claim in full or in part for a lump sum;

¶30

[(aa) an order awarding interest or penalty Under Section 4A;]

¶31

(b) an order refusing to allow redemption of a half-monthly payment;

¶32

(c) an order providing for the distribution of compensation among the dependants of a deceased workman, or disallowing any claim of a person alleging himself to be such dependant;

¶33

(d) an order allowing or disallowing any claim for the amount of an indemnity under the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 12; or

¶34

(e) an order refusing to register a memorandum of agreement or registering the same or providing for the registration of the same subject to conditions:

¶35

Provided that no appeal shall lie against any order unless a substantial question of law is

¶36

[CMA-1695 / 2009]

¶37

(4 of 5)

¶38

involved in the appeal and, in the case of an order other than an order such as is referred to in Clause (b), unless the amount in dispute in the appeal is not less than three hundred rupees: (Emphasis supplied)

¶39

The Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, having regard to the evidence, had returned a finding on the nature of injury and the percentage of disability. It is purely a question of fact. There is no case for the insurance company that the finding is based on no evidence at all or that it is perverse. Under Section 4(1)(c)(ii) of the Act, the percentage of permanent disability needs to be assessed only by a qualified medical practitioner. There is no case for the Respondents that the doctor who issued the disability certificate is not a qualified medical practitioner, as defined under the Act. Thus, the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner has passed the order based on the certificate of disability issued by the doctor and which has been duly proved before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner.

¶40

Under the scheme of the Act, the Workmen's 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. The whole exercise made by the High Court is not within the competence of the High Court Under Section 30 of the Act.”

¶41

Thus as discussed above, the appeal filed by the appellant deserved to the dismissed. For the reasons, firstly, no substantial question of law is made out in this appeal, secondly, the Commissioner after considering the evidence available on record and after considering the nature of the job of the claimant has rightly assessed the loss of earning capacity as 60% while assessing the compensation.

¶42

[CMA-1695 / 2009]

¶43

(5 of 5)

¶44

In that view of the matter, the appeal filed by the appellant as well as stay application stands dismissed.

¶45

(INDERJEET SINGH),J

¶46

Jyoti/77

Bajaj Allianze General Insuran v. Shafi Mohammad and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bajaj Allianze General Insuran v. Shafi Mohammad and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mukesh Kumar and Ors. Vs Roopvati and Ors.

Sonali Secondary School Vs Dalchand

Chetan@Lala Swami Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Smt Chand Bai @ Chandni Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Anil Kumar Soni Vs State of Rajasthan through P P

Kamal Singh Vs U O I