Dismissed

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ishwar Lal and Others

Rajasthan HC7 Jul 2023CMA/5019/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil miscellaneous appeal under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, the Insurance Company challenged a Compensation Commissioner's award of Rs. 4,27,140 to deceased employee's heirs. The High Court held that as the appeal lacked a substantial question of law, it could not re-appreciate evidence or disturb the Commissioner's factual findings, dismissing the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The appeal challenging the Compensation Commissioner's award was dismissed as it did not involve a substantial question of law.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Ishwar Lal… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 5019/2012

¶3

National Insurance Company Ltd. Through Its Authorized Officer, Jaipur Regional Office, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur

¶4

----Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Ishwar Lal S/o Late Gayarsi Lal, R/o Village Kho Dariba Kawar, Tehsil Rajgarh, Distt. Alwar Raj.

¶7

Smt. Panchi Devi W/o Shri Ishwar Lal, R/o Village Kho Dariba Kawar, Tehsil Rajgarh, Distt. Alwar Raj.

¶8

Feliram S/o Hukum Chand, R/o Goverdhanpuri, Near Galtagate, Jaipur Raj.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Praveen Jain, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjay Singhal, Adv.

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL

¶12

JUDGMENT

¶13

JUDGMENT RESERVED ON 05/07/2023 JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON 07/07/2023

¶14

The present civil misc. appeal under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 has been preferred by the appellant - Insurance Company against impugned Judgment dated 29.10.2012 passed by the learned Commissioner, Employees Compensation Act, Jaipur City in Suit No. WCC/F 42/2010 titled as "Ishwar Lal & anr. vs. Feliram & anr.", whereby while allowing the claim petition filed by the respondents-claimants, a sum of Rs.4,27,140/- has been awarded in their favour along with interest @ 12% per annum and against the appellant/non-claimant jointly and severally.

¶15

(2 of 7) [CMA-5019/2012]

¶16

Facts in short are that the respondents-claimants filed a claim petition under the provisions of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (for short hereinafter referred to as "Act of 1923") against the appellant-non-claimant and respondent No.3-non-claimant - Feliram before the learned Commissioner, Employees Compensation Act, Jaipur City (for short hereinafter referred to as "learned Commissioner") claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,00,000/- on account of death of the deceased Girraj, who while working as cleaner on the truck owned by respondent No. 3-non-claimant, met with an accident due to falling from the truck and sustained injuries on 15.08.2009 and later on, he died on 25.10.2009. The claim petition was contested by the non-claimants, who filed their respective replies. After framing issues and adducing the evidence, the learned Commissioner passed the Judgment dated 29.10.2012 allowing the claim petition filed by the respondents-claimants and awarded a total sum of Rs. 4,27,140/- in their favour and against the appellant-non-claimant as well as respondent No. 3-non-claimant jointly and severally along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of death of the deceased employee i.e. 25.10.2009. Aggrieved by same, the present appeal was preferred by the appellant-insurance company before this Court.

¶17

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶18

Learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company has contended that the learned Commissioner has wrongly allowed the claim petition filed by the respondents-claimants. He has further contended that insured vehicle was falsely involved in the instant

¶19

(3 of 7) [CMA-5019/2012]

¶20

case as deceased Girraj sustained injuries on account of falling from height. As per the admission ticket, the doctor has categorically mentioned that Girraj sustained injuries on account of falling from height and there is no mention that Girraj sustained injuries in the road accident.

¶21

He has further contended that report of the incident was lodged after two months on the basis of false and concocted story. In the present case, incident took place on 15.08.2009 and Girraj died on 25.10.2009. He was discharged from the hospital on 26.09.2009 but no report with respect to said accident was lodged immediately after his discharge.

¶22

He has further contended that there is no documentary evidence available on record to prove the relationship of employee and employer. He has further contended that no postmortem report was produced on record before the learned Commissioner and the treating doctor was also not examined. He also contended that in the absence of above evidence, it cannot be said that there was any direct connection between the injuries and death of the deceased Girraj. Learned counsel, therefore, prayed that the present appeal may be allowed and the judgment impugned dated 29.10.2012 passed by the learned Commissioner may be set aside.

¶23

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondentsclaimants while supporting the judgment impugned has submitted that no substantial question of law is involved in this case. The appeal has been filed on the basis of findings of fact. He has further submitted that after investigation, the Police Station

¶24

[CMA-5019/2012]

¶25

(4 of 7)

¶26

Malakheda, Alwar submitted the report (Ex.1), in which, it was mentioned that death of the Girraj Prasad Meena took place on account of injuries sustained by him due to falling from the truck as he lost his balance while laying tripal on the truck due to rainy season. Learned counsel has further submitted that the judgment impugned passed by the learned Commissioner is based upon appreciation of evidence available on record, therefore, same does not warrant any interference by this Court. Hence, the appeal of the appellant-insurance company may be dismissed.

¶27

In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the respondents-claimants has placed reliance on the judgments delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Golla Rajanna etc. vs. The Divisional Manager & Anr. reported in 2017(1) RAR 35 (SC) & North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation vs. Smt. Sujatha reported in MACD 2019(1) (SC) 19 and the judgments delivered by the coordinate Bench of this Court in the cases of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Ranchoor Das Sankhla & Ors. (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 4099/2012) decided on 19.01.2023, The New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Smt. Moon Kanwar & Ors. (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2434/2007) decided on 03.10.2017 and New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Ram Singh & Ors. (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 6266/2016) decided on 25.04.2018 .

¶28

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment impugned dated 29.10.2012 as also record of the case.

¶29

[CMA-5019/2012]

¶30

(5 of 7)

¶31

In the present case, the contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company are based on the findings on facts and evidence. In the opinion of this Court, learned Commissioner is the last authority on facts as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Golla Rajanna (supra). The relevant Para 8 & 10 of the judgment reads as

¶32

under :-

¶33

"8. Section 30 of the Act provides for appeal to the High Court. To the extent, the provision reads as follows;

¶34

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

¶35

(a) an order awarding as compensation a lumpsum 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;]

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶38

(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

¶39

(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:

¶40

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

¶41

[CMA-5019/2012]

¶42

(6 of 7)

¶43

as is referred to in Clause (b),unless the amount in dispute in the appeal is notless than three hundred rupees (Emphasis supplied)

¶44

10. 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 question 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."

¶45

Similar view has been expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation (supra), wherein it has been categorically held that the appeal filed against the order of Workmen Compensation Commissioner is not maintainable, if no substantial question of law is involved in the matter.

¶46

It is 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.

¶47

In the instant case, a perusal of the judgment impugned reveals that the findings of fact recorded by the learned Commissioner are based on appreciation of the evidence and the same are not liable to be disturbed by this Court.

¶48

[CMA-5019/2012]

¶49

(7 of 7)

¶50

In view of the discussion aforesaid, this Court does not find any good ground for 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.

¶51

Since the appeal is not qualifying to have a substantial question of law, which is mandatory under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, therefore, no interference is warranted in this appeal and same is dismissed.

¶52

The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.

¶53

The record be sent back to the trial court forthwith.

¶54

(BHUWAN GOYAL),J

¶55

Keshav/22

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ishwar Lal and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ishwar Lal 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

Lokesh Kumar Vs Smt Santara Devi an Others

Dilip Kumar Joshi Vs Pradeep Kumar Joshi and Another

The Bara Quarry Labour Contract Co-Operative Society Ltd. Vs State of Rajasthan

Regional Director and Ors. Vs M/S Popular Art Palace

Smt Prem Devi Vs Smt Chota Devi and Others

Dulari Devi W/O Shri Daulat Ram Vs M/S A.R. Meti Engineer (S.T. No. 0742011054 Dated 1.7.2002)