Dismissed

Hdfc Ergo Gen Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jaluram and Another

Rajasthan HC4 Dec 2023CMA/1092/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, the High Court considered whether an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, warranted interference. The court held that no substantial question of law arose, limiting appellate jurisdiction to statutory grounds, and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The civil miscellaneous appeals were dismissed.

Hdfc Ergo Gen Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1092/2016

¶3

Hdfc Ergo Gen Insurance Co Ltd having its local office at office No. 2, Third Floor, C-99 Singhvi Upasana Tower, Shubhash Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur having its regional office at N-22, Second Floor, Sector-18, Noida-201301 through its constituted attorney.

¶4

----Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Jaluram S/o Padmaram, aged about 35 years, R/o Nojla Ki Dhani, tan Kolya, District Nagaur, Presently R/o Ward No. 1, Losal, District Sikar

¶7

Hanumanaram S/o Shivkaran, R/o Nojla Ki Dhani, tan Kolya, District Nagaur

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Appellant(s) : Mr. S K Soni for Mr. Virendra For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinay mathur

¶10

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA

¶11

Order

¶12

04/12/2023

¶13

;g vihy vihykFkhZ&chek dEiuh dh vksj ls vk;qDr deZpkjh {kfriwfrZ vf/kfu;e] lhdj }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 18-01-2016 ds fo:) izLrqr dh xbZ gS] ftlds }kjk izR;FkhZ dze&1@nkosnkj dks 7]11]265 :i;s dh {kfriwfrZ jkf'k fnykbZ xbZ gSA

¶14

vihy ij lquk x;kA izR;FkhZ ds vf/koDrk us vihy dh iks"k.kh;rk dks pqukSrh nh gSA mudk rdZ gS fd /kkjk 30 deZdkj {kfriwfrZ vf/kfu;e ds izko/kkuksa ds vUrxZr dsoy fof/k ds lkjoku~ iz'u ds laca/k esa gh vihy iks"k.kh; gSA mudk rdZ gS fd orZeku~ vihy vihykFkhZ&chek dEiuh }kjk ;g dgrs gq, izLrqr dh xbZ gS fd vk;qDr us nkosnkj dks [kyklh gksuk ekurs gq, mldk osru 7]000 :i;s izfrekg xyr r; fd;k gSA mudk rdZ gS fd vk;qDr ds rF; laca/kh bl fu"d"kZ dks /kkjk 30

¶15

(2 of 6)

¶16

[CMA-1092/2016]

¶17

ds izko/kkuksa dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, pqukSrh ugha nh tk ldrh gSA vius rdZ ds leFkZu esa fuEu U;kf;d fofu'p; izLrqr fd;s&

¶18

North East Karnataka road Transport vs. Sujatha 2019 ACJ 29

¶19

Golla Rajanna and Ors. vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. 2017 ACJ 1

¶20

M/s Krishna Weaving Mills, Ajmer vs. Smt. Chandra Bhaga Devi wife of Mool Chand & Anr.

¶21

1985(1) WLN 455

¶22

Anees @ Mohammad Anees vs. Smt. Kuldeep anr.

¶23

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 3020/2016 Dated 02.11.2023

¶24

blds foijhr vihykFkhZ ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dk rdZ gS fd mudh vihy iks"k.kh; gSA mudk rdZ gS fd rF; ds lca/k esa tks fu"d"kZ vk;qDr }kjk fudkys x;s gSa] os lk{; ij vk/kkfjr ugha gksdj vuqfpr o euekus gSaA vr% vihykFkhZ dh vihy iks"k.kh; gSA

¶25

geus rdZ&fordZ ij euu fd;kA i=koyh dk /;kuiwoZd voyksdu fd;kA

¶26

/kkjk 30 deZdkj {kfriwfrZ vf/kfu;e] 1923 ds vUrxZr fuEu izko/kku fd;k x;k gS&

¶27

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

¶28

(a) an order awarding as compensation a lump sum whether by way of redemption of a half- monthly payment or otherwise or disallowing a claim in full or in part for a lump sum; (aa) an order awarding interest or penalty under section 4A;]

¶29

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

[CMA-1092/2016]

(3 of 6)

dependants of a deceased workman, or disallowing any claim of a person alleging himself to be such dependant;

¶34

(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 (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 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"

¶36

ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us vius U;kf;d fofu'p; North East Karnataka road Transport vs. Sujatha 2019 ACJ 29 ds iSjk la[;k 9 ls 12 esa fuEukuqlkj fu.khZr fd;k gS&

¶37

"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 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, the extent of disability caused to the 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

¶38

[CMA-1092/2016]

¶39

(4 of 6)

¶40

employment and he/his LRs sue/s his employer to claim compensation under the Act.

¶41

The afore mentioned 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 the findings of fact.

¶42

The appeal provided under Section 30 of the Act to the High Court against the order of the Commissioner lie only against the specific orders set out in clause (a) to (e) of Section 30 of the Act with a further rider contained in first proviso to the Section that the appeal must involve substantial question of law.

¶43

In other words, the appeal provided under Section 30 of the Act to the High Court against the order of the Commissioner is not like a Regular First Appeal akin to Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which can be heard both on facts and law. The appellate jurisdiction of the High Court to decide the appeal is confined only to examine the substantial questions of law arising in the case."

¶44

blh rjg dk fl)kUr ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us U;kf;d fofu'p; Golla Rajanna and Ors. vs. Divisional Manager, United IndiaInsurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. 2017 ACJ 1 ds iSjk la[;k 11 esa fuEukuqlkj izfrikfnr fd;k gS& "11. 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

¶45

[CMA-1092/2016]

¶46

(5 of 6)

¶47

basis. The whole exercise made by the High Court is not within the competence of the High Court under Section 30 of the Act.

¶48

bl U;k;ky; dh led{k ihB us U;kf;d fu.kZ; M/s Krishna Weaving Mills, Ajmer vs. Smt. Chandra Bhaga Devi wife of Mool Chand & Anr. 1985(1) WLN 455 esa fuEukuqlkj fu.khZr fd;k gS&

¶49

"8. Moreover, under Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act only substantial questions of law can be agitated. It the present case, I am convinced that there is no substantial question of law involved.

¶50

The question of public importance and question on which no final interpretation is available are known as substantial questions of law. Even if this definition is further extended, it will have to bear in mind that there is vast difference between the questions of law and substantial questions of law. It is only when the question of law is not well settled and it is of importance, it would become a substantial questions of law. The employer should not indiscriminately file appeals against poor workman's dependents. No notice is given before Fatal Accidents to the victim and how can want of notice to employer be fatal accident again, depriving compensation to unfortunate victims or dependents in cases of the Compensation Act.

¶51

bl U;k;ky; dh led{k ihB us Anees @ Mohammad Anees vs. Smt. Kuldeep anr. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 3020/2016 Dated 02.11.2023 esa Hkh fuEukuqlkj fu.khZr fd;k gS&

¶52

"It is the settled position of law that limited jurisdiction has been given to the High Court confined to the substantial question of law only and the High Court cannot venture and re-appreciate the evidence and finding of fact recorded on the evidence led by both the parties.

¶53

[CMA-1092/2016]

¶54

(6 of 6)

¶55

This Court 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. This Court accordingly upholds these findings.

¶56

Since the appeals are not qualifying to have a substantial question of law, which is mandatory under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, therefore, no interference is called for in these appeals and the same are dismissed."

¶57

mDr U;kf;d fofu'p;ksa esa izfrikfnr fl)kUrksa dks ns[kus ls Li"V gS fd /kkjk 30 deZdkj {kfriwfrZ vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr vihy dsoy dkuwu ds egRoiw.kZ iz'u ¼Substantial question of law½ ij gh iks"k.kh; gS] fdlh vU; ds laca/k esa ughaA orZeku~ izdj.k esa vihykFkhZ us 'kq) rF;ksa ds iz'u ij vihy izLrqr dh gS vkSj nq?kZVuk ds le; mlds [kyklh gksus rFkk mldk osru 7]000 :i;s izfrekg gksus ds laca/k esa tks fu"d"kZ vk;qDr deZdkj {kfriwfrZ us ikfjr fd;k gS] mls pqukSrh nh xbZ gSA gekjs fopkj ls mi;qZDr U;kf;d fofu'p;ksa dh jks'kuh esa mDr rF;kRed fu"d"kZ esa gLr{ksi djus dk dksbZ vk/kkj gekjs le{k ugha gSA

¶58

vihykFkhZ ds vf/koDrk ;g Hkh ugha n'kkZ ik;s fd mDr rF; ds laca/k esa tks fu"d"kZ vk;qDr deZdkj {kfriwfrZ }kjk fudkyk x;k gS] og euekuk gks ;k fcuk fdlh lk{; ds vk/kkj ij fudkyk x;k gks vFkok fof/k ds izko/kkuksa ds fo:) gksA

¶59

,slh fLFkfr esa tcfd mDr vihy esa fof/k dk dksbZ lkjoku iz'u ekStwn ugha gS] ftldk gksuk /kkjk 30 deZdkj {kfriwfrZ vf/kfu;e ds izko/kkuksa ds vUrxZr vihy iks"k.kh; gksus ds fy, vkKkid gS] rks vkykSP; vkns'k fnukad 18-01-2016 esa bl vihy esa gLr{ksi fd;s tkus dk dksbZ vk/kkj ugha gSA vr% vihy fujLruh; gSA

¶60

ifj.kker% vihykFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr dh xbZ vihy fujLr dh tkrh gSA rn~uqlkj fofo/k izkFkZuki=] ;fn dksbZ gks] rks fujLr fd;s tkrs gSaA

¶61

(SHUBHA MEHTA),J

¶62

VISHAL SHARMA /48

Hdfc Ergo Gen Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jaluram and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hdfc Ergo Gen Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jaluram and Another

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

Lalit Kishore Vs State

Ajay Bairwa S/O Shri Jagannath Vs State of Rajasthan

Ravi Balai Son of Shri Rajendra Prasad Vs State of Rajasthan

The National Insurance Company Vs Pema Ram and Ors.

Azizurrehman Vs Suresh Kumar Nagar

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt Kanta Bardia and Others