Maan Singh Thr Lrs Vs Smt Pusha Devi and Ors.

Smt. Pushpa Devi W/o Late Shri Narayan Singh, Aged about 32 Years, R/o Village Shekhpura, Tehsil Kathumar District Alwar, Presently Adarsh Colony, Bharatpur

¶10

Arvind S/o Late Shri Narayan Singh Minor Through Their Mother Smt. Pushpa, Aged about 14 Years, R/o Village Shekhpura, Tehsil Kathumar District Alwar, Presently Adarsh Colony, Bharatpur

¶11

Kumari Amita D/o Late Shri Narayan Singh Minor Through Their Mother Smt . Pushpa Devi, Aged about 12 Years,R/o Village Shekhpura, Tehsil Kathumar District Alwar, Presently Adarsh Colony, Bharatpur

¶12

Kumari Sunita D/o Late Shri Narayan Singh Minor Through Their Mother Smt. Pushpa Devi, Aged about 10 Years,R/o Village Shekhpura, Tehsil Kathumar District Alwar, Presently Adarsh Colony, Bharatpur

¶13

Devendra S/o Late Shri Narayan Singh Minor Through Their Mother Smt. Pushpa Devi, Aged about 08 Years,R/o Village Shekhpura, Tehsil Kathumar District Alwar, Presently Adarsh Colony, Bharatpur

¶14

----Respondents

¶15

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. Mr. Mr.	Dhruv Atri, Adv. & Mahaveer Singh Sherawat, Adv. for Harendra Singh Sinsinwar, Adv.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	Virendra Agrawal, Adv.
	Ms.	Anjli Assat, Adv.

[2026:RJ-JP:10652]

[CMA-202/2018]

(2 of 5)

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS

¶20

Judgment / Order

¶21

13/03/2026

¶22

vihykFkhZ&vizkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls ;g vihy izR;FkhZ&izkFkhZx.k ds fo:) /kkjk 30 deZdkj {kfriwfrZ vf/kfu;e] 1923 ¼vkxs ^^vf/kfu;e&1923^^ dgk tkosxk½ ds rgr fo}ku U;k;ky; deZpkjh {kfriwfrZ vk;qDr] Hkjriqj }kjk izdj.k la[;k E.C.A.(F)/D-08/2009 esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 22-11-2017 ls O;fFkr gksdj is'k dh gS ftlds ek/;e ls izkFkhZx.k dh Dyse ;kfpdk Lohdkj djrs gq, dqy 3]68]340@& :i;s e; 12 izfr'kr C;kt lfgr izfrdj izkFkhZx.k dks vizkFkhZx.k ls fnyk;s tkus dk vkns'k fn;k x;k gSA

¶23

fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykFkhZ&vizkFkhZx.k dk fuosnu gS fd erd ukjk;.k flag ?kVuk ds le; erd ekuflag dk pkyd gks] ;g rF; izekf.kr ugha gSA erd dh vk;q ds laca/k esa dksbZ lqn< lkexzh vfHkys[k ij izLrqr ugha dh x;h gS] izfrdj dh x.kuk fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk leqfpr :i ls ugha dh x;h gS] fopkj.k U;k;ky; dks izdj.k dh lquokbZ dk +{ks=kf/kdkj ugha Fkk] D;ksafd ;g ?kVuk iqfyl Fkkuk dklxat ftyk ,Vk esa dkfjr gqbZ gS rFkk e`rd vFkok nkosnkj Hkjriqj ds fuoklh ugha Fks] vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa vihyk/khu vkns'k vikLr gksus ;ksX; gSA

¶24

blds foijhr fo}ku vf/koDrk izR;FkhZ&izkFkhZx.k dk fuosnu gS fd ;kfpdk izLrqr fd;s tkus ds le; nkosnkj Hkjriqj ds fuoklh Fks] ;g fcUnq i`Fkd ls fopkj.k ds nkSjku o fu.kZ; ls iwoZ gh r; gks pqdk Fkk ftls fdlh Hkh i{k }kjk pqukSrh ugha nh x;h gS] vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa vc ;g vkifRr bl U;k;ky; esa ugha mBkbZ tk ldrhA ;g Hkh fuosnu fd;k fd vihykFkhZ dh vksj ls tks Hkh vkifRr;ka yh x;h gS os rF;ksa ls lacaf/kr gS ftlds laca/k esa miyC/k lk{; ds vuqlkj fu"d"kZ fn;k x;k gS] fof/k dk

¶25

[2026:RJ-JP:10652]

¶26

(3 of 5) [CMA-202/2018]

¶27

dksbZ lkjoku iz'u vUroZfyr ugha gS] vr% ^^vf/kfu;e&1923^^ dh /kkjk&30 ds izko/kku rFkk ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs. Smt. Sujatha (2019) 11 SCC 514 esa izfrikfnr O;oLFkk ds vuqlkj ;g vihy iks"k.kh; ugha gSA

¶28

ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr U;kf;d fu.kZ; North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs. Smt. Sujatha (Supra) ds lqlaxr iSjk la[;k&9] 10] 11 rFkk 12 fuEukuqlkj gS&

¶29

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

¶30

10. 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.

¶31

11. 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.

¶32

12. 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

[2026:RJ-JP:10652]

[CMA-202/2018]

(4 of 5)

examine the substantial questions of law arising in the case.

¶37

mijksDr fu.kZ; esa izfrikfnr fof/kd O;oLFkk rFkk vf/kfu;e&1923 dh /kkjk 30 ds izko/kkuksa ds vuqlkj Li"V gS fd fof/k dk lkjoku iz'u vUroZfyr gksus ij gh vihy lquokbZ gsrq xzg.k dh tk ldrh gSA orZeku ekeys esa izkFkhZ&nkosnkjksa dk ;g vfHkdFku jgk gS fd ?kVuk ds le; izkFkhZ la[;k&1 ds ifr rFkk izkFkhZ la[;k&2 ls 5 ds firk erd ukjk;.k flag foi{kh la[;k&1 ekuflag ds VªsDVj ij pkyd ds :i esa fu;qDr Fks] ?kVuk ds le; erd ukjk;.k flag pkyd ds :i esa dk;Zjr FkkA rRle; VªsDVj ij vizkFkhZ la[;k&1 ekuflag ekStwn Fkk rc VªsDVj dh ywV dkfjr djus ds vk'k; ls vijkf/k;ksa }kjk ukjk;.k flag rFkk ekuflag ds lkFk ekjihV dh x;h ftlls mudh e`R;q gks x;hA

¶38

erd ukjk;.k flag dh iRuh Jherh iq"ik nsoh }kjk ekSf[kd lk{; ds ek/;e ls ;g LFkkfir fd;k x;k gS fd erd ukjk;.k flag ?kVuk ds le; ekuflag ds VªsDVj ij pkyd Fkk] izfrijh{kk esa pkyd dc ls Fkk] bl laca/k esa Li"V tokc ugha fn;k gS] ijarq ;g Li"V :i ls dFku jgk gS fd og ekuflag ds VªsDVj ij pkyd FkkA ,sls vkdfLed dk;kZsa ds fy, fu;qfDr i= vFkok vU; nLrkost lkekU; :i ls miyC/k ugha gksrs gSa rFkk ekSf[kd lk{; ij gh fuHkZj jguk gksrk gSA nkosnkjksa dh ekSf[kd lk{; ds vk/kkj ij e`rd ukjk;.k flag dk ekuflag ds ;gka fu;ksftr gksuk rFkk fu;kstu dky ds nkSjku ;g ?kVuk dkfjr gksuk fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk izekf.kr ekurs gq, Dyse ;kfpdk Lohdkj dh x;h gSA

¶39

tgka rd e`rd dh vk; o vk;q dk iz'u gS] bl ij nksuksa i{kksa dh lk{; ds mijkar laHkkoukvksa dh laHkkO;rk ds vk/kkj ij fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk fu"d"kZ fn;k x;k gSA tgka rd {ks=kf/kdkj dk iz'u gS] vihyk/khu fu.kZ; fnukad 22-11-2017 ls iwoZ gh ;g fcUnq fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk vafre :i ls fu.khZr fd;k tk pqdk Fkk vkSj rRle; vihykFkhZ }kjk mls

[CMA-202/2018]

[2026:RJ-JP:10652]

(5 of 5)

dksbZ pqukSrh ugha nh x;h gS] vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa vc ;g vkifRr bl U;k;ky; esa mBk;k tkuk vuqer ugha gSA

¶44

fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykFkhZ }kjk 'ks"k tks Hkh vkifRr;ka yh x;h gS] og rF;ksa ds laca/k esa gS vkSj mlds ckcr miyC/k lk{; ds vk/kkj ij fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk fu"d"kZ fn;k x;k gS] fn;k x;k fu"d"kZ lk{; ds vHkko esa gks vFkok fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk i=koyh ij miyC/k egRoiw.kZ lk{; dks utj vankt dj viuk fu"d"kZ fn;k gks vFkok tks rF; vfHkys[k ij Fks gh ugha] mu ij fopkj djus ds mijkUr euekuk fu.kZ; fn;k gks] ,slh fLFkfr vfHkys[k ij ugha gSA

¶45

mijksDr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa fof/k dk dksbZ lkjoku iz'u bl ekeys esa vUroZfyr ugha gS] bl izdkj U;kf;d fu.kZ; North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation ¼iwoksZDr½ esa izfrikfnr O;oLFkk rFkk vf/kfu;e&1923 dh /kkjk&30 ds vuqlkj ;g vihy iks"k.kh; ugha gksus ls [kkfjt gksus ;ksX; gSA

¶46

rnuqlkj vihyk/khu fu.kZ; fnukad 22-11-2017 dh iqf"V djrs gq, ;g vihy [kkfjt dh tkrh gSaA

¶47

fopkj.k U;k;ky; dk vfHkys[k bl vkns'k dh izfr ds lkFk fopkj.k U;k;ky; dks izsf"kr fd;k tkosA

¶48

(UMA SHANKER VYAS),J

¶49

Murari Lal Sharma /53-S

Maan Singh Thr Lrs v. Smt Pusha Devi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maan Singh Thr Lrs v. Smt Pusha Devi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Iffco-Tokio Gen Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Banwari and Anr.

Banti Meena S/O Ramprasad Vs State of Rajasthan

Sandeep Sharma S/O Radheshyam Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Om Prakash Jaipuria Vs Shyam Singh Sinsinwar

Dinesh Vishnoi S/O Manganaram Vs State of Rajasthan

Kishan @ Krishan Kanhiya S/O Shri Prabhulal Vs the State of Rajasthan