Dismissed

Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. Sh. Kishan S/O Late Sh. Kundan

Rajasthan HC5 Nov 2024CMA/1346/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal against an award under the Employees Compensation Act, holding that the challenge to the finding of principal employer liability raised only questions of fact. Relying on Section 30 of the Act and Supreme Court precedent, the Court refused to re-appreciate evidence.

What the court decided

AI extract

Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs Sh. Kishan S/O Late Sh. Kundan — Rajasthan HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:50064]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1346/2013

¶4

Maruti Udyog Ltd., (Now Known As Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.) Registered Office At Plot No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi Through Authorized Attorney

¶5

----Appellants

¶6

Versus

¶7

Sh. Kishan S/o Late Sh. Kundan, Presently R/o Shivaji Nagar, Dudu, District Jaipur

¶8

Smt. Dhakha W/o Sh. Kishan, Presently R/o Shivaji Nagar, Dudu, District Jaipur

¶9

Sh. Ramlal S/o Sh. Kishan, Presently R/o Shivaji Nagar, Dudu, District Jaipur

¶10

M/s Dynamic Movers Pvt. Ltd., Through Its Director, M- 25, Vishwakarma Colony, M.b. Road, New Delhi 110044

¶11

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Through Regional Manager, Regional Office, Anand Bhawan, Sansar Chandra Road, Jaipur

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. Sandeep Pathak with
	Mr. Akshat Sharma.
For Respondent(s)	: None.

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

¶15

Order

¶16

05/11/2024

¶17

Instant civil misc. appeal is preferred by appellant aggrieved from judgment dated 27.02.2009 in claim case No.WCCF 65/2008 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation Act 1923 Jaipur in a petition preferred by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (claimants).

[2024:RJ-JP:50064]

[CMA-1346/2013]

(2 of 4)

Learned counsel for appellant submitted that on 14.04.2006 Laxman (driver of vehicle No.HR38L3031), while checking air pressure in tyre, while parking vehicle on road then Maruti HR20J0512 hit him which resulted into his death and at the time of death he was employed with respondent No.4 (Transport Company). She further submitted that Commissioner has committed serious error while invoking jurisdiction and considering appellant as principal employer. She further submitted that agreement between the appellant and respondent No.4 was not proved to show that deceased Laxman was an employee of present appellant. She also submitted that an award passed without any jurisdiction is non-east in eye of law. She further referred the substantial question(s) of law suggested by her and submitted that present appellant cannot be treated as principal employer as there was no privity contract between the deceased and present appellant.

¶22

Heard learned counsel for appellant. Perused the record. 4. An inquest number No.13/12006 was registered at P.S. Narwana (Haryana), for accident in the night of 14.04.2006. The claimants have filed claim petition on death of Laxman, aged 30 years, having monthly income of ₹6500/- and employed with present appellant and respondent No.4. Instant appeal is preferred aggrieved from award passed by the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation Act in a petition filed on behalf of workman. The accident and quantum are not in question.

¶23

The appellant has challenged the liability of present appellant as principal employer. The evidence further suggested that deceased was working on vehicle No.HR38L3031 as a driver and

[2024:RJ-JP:50064]

[CMA-1346/2013]

(3 of 4)

this fact was not challenged by non-claimant defendant No.1 Dynamic Movers Pvt. Ltd. A fact was brought on record that there was an agreement between M/s Dynamic Movers Pvt. Ltd. And present appellant for transportation of vehicles from manufacturing facility of present appellant to designated places. Herein, learned Commissioner has referred the evidence of V.K. Sharma, who admitted the agreement between present appellant and respondent No.4 and on the basis of this agreement, a conclusion was drawn that deceased was in employment of present appellant.

¶28

Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act provides for grounds of appeal. No appeal shall lie against any order unless substantial question of law is involved in an appeal. This issue was considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Golla Rajamma and Ors. Vs. Divisional Manager and Anr. (2017) 1 SCC 45 wherein after considering Section 30 of Employees Compensation Act it was held that appeal before the High Court can be entertained only on substantial question of law and the High Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence for fact finding or answering factual questions.

¶29

After considering the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court and also the provision of Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, I am of considered view that the questions raised by learned counsel for appellant pertains to factual fact finding. The admission on behalf of present appellant is already referred by the Commissioner while considering liability of present appellant. Therefore, there is no ground to entertain the appeal in

(4 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JP:50064]

[CMA-1346/2013]

terms of Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act. The grounds does not give rise to any substantial question of law.

¶34

In view of aforesaid, the appeal sans merits and liable to be dismissed.

¶35

Accordingly, instant appeal is hereby dismissed. Misc. application, if any, stand disposed of.

¶36

No order as to cost.

¶37

(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J

¶38

PREETI VALECHA /07

Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. Sh. Kishan S/O Late Sh. Kundan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. Sh. Kishan S/O Late Sh. Kundan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Naim Ahmed Vs Ajab Singh and Others

Smt. Saraswati Bulani W/O Suresh Chand Bulani Vs Manager, the Kota Central Coperative Bank Ltd.

Ajay Kumar Luharuwala Vs Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd.

Rohitash Singh Son of Bhagwana Ram, Vs Ramkaran Son of Mangtu Ram

Mafi Dayalji Maharajn Devotee Ram Prasad S/O Ram Swaroop Meena, Vs Purushottam Das Chela Ramdayal Das Dadupanthi

Saayed Ali Vs State and Ors.