Dismissed

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

Rajasthan HC12 Mar 2026CMA/260/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed an appeal against an insurance claim rejection. The bench held that since the claimant failed to prove the employer-employee relationship and negligence during the hearing, no substantial question of law arose to interfere with the Commissioner's order.

What did the court decide?

Appeal against the rejection of insurance claim order dated 19-07-2016 dismissed.

Iffco-Tokio Gen Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Banwari and Anr. — Insurance | Rajasthan HC (2026)

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:10516]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 260/2017

¶4

Iffco- Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. Through Its Constituted Attorney/authorized Signatory, Having Its Registered Office At 34, Nehru Place, 3Rd Floor, Iffco House, New Delhi And Having Its Office At A-13, Third Floor, Near Khatipura Turn, Hanuman Nagar, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur Insurance Company Of Vehicle Truck No.rj 31-G-6939

¶5

----Appellant/Non Claimant No. 2 Versus

¶6

Banwari S/o Shri Gopilal, R/o Yakubganj, Teh. And Distt. Tonk

¶7

----Respondent/Claimant

¶8

Navdeep Kumar S/o Shri Thakurdas, R/o Village Jandali, Teh. Payal, Distt. Ludhiyana, Punjab Registered Owner Of Vehicle Truck No.rj 31-G-6939

¶9

----Respondent/Non Claimant No. 1

¶10

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sandeep Pathak, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Khandelwal, Adv. Ms. Gauri Meena, Adv.

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS

¶12

Judgment / Order

¶13

12/03/2026

¶14

vihykFkhZ chek daiuh ¼vkxs ^^vihykFkhZ^^ dgk tkosxk½ dh vksj ls ;g vihy /kkjk 30 deZdkj {kfriwfrZ vf/kfu;e] 1923 ¼vkxs ^^vf/kfu;e&1923^^ dgk tkosxk½ ds rgr fo}ku U;k;ky;] vk;qDr deZpkjh {kfriwfrZ vf/kfu;e] 1923 Vksad }kjk izdj.k E.C.A/NF/56/2015 esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 19-07-2016 ls O;fFkr gksdj is'k dh gS] ftlds ek/;e ls izR;FkhZ@nkosnkj dks izR;FkhZ Øe&2 ds fu;kstu ds nkSjku okgu nq?kZVuk esa ?kk;y gksus ij

[CMA-260/2017]

[2026:RJ-JP:10516]

(2 of 5)

dqy 11]35]447@&:i;s e; 12 izfr'kr okf"kZd C;kt lfgr izfrdj fnyk;k gSA

¶19

fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykFkhZ&chek daiuh dk fuosnu gS fd izR;FkhZ Øe&2 dk okgu vihykFkhZ chek daiuh ds ;gka chfer Fkk ysfdu izR;FkhZ Øe&1 nkosnkj cuokjh mijksDr okgu ekfyd ds v/khu ?kVuk ds le; fu;ksftr gks] bl ckcr~ ys'kek= i=koyh ij lk{; ugha vkbZ gS] ,slh fLFkfr esa fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk fu;ksDrk o deZpkjh ds laca/k gksus ds laca/k esa tks vfHker fn;k x;k gS] og vuqfpr o euekuk gS vkSj bl vk/kkj ij vihyk/khu fu.kZ; vikLr fd;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA

¶20

fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykFkhZ dh vksj ls ,d rdZ ;g Hkh fn;k x;k fd vkgr fu;kstu ds nkSjku nq?kZVukxzLr gqvk gks] bl ckcr~ Hkh i=koyh ij vko';d lk{; ugha gSA vius rdksZa ds leFkZu esa U;kf;d fu.kZ; Shantabai Ananda Jagtap & anr. Vs. Jayram Ganpati Jagtap & anr. (2023) 8 SCC 171 izLrqr fd;kA

¶21

blds foijhr fo}ku vf/koDrk izR;FkhZ&nkosnkj dh vksj ls North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs. Smt. Sujatha (2019) 11 SCC 514 izLrqr djrs gq, fuosnu fd;k fd ?kVuk ds le; nkosnkj izR;FkhZ Øe&2 ds v/khu mlds okgu ij [kyklh Fkk] bl ckcr~ nkosnkj dh vksj ls ekSf[kd lk{; izLrqr dh xbZ gS] ftldk dksbZ [k.Mu ugha gqvk gSA mudk ;g Hkh fuosnu gS fd ,slh ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa fof/k dk dksbZ lkjoku iz'u varoZfyr ugha gS vkSj bl dkj.k ls ^^vf/kfu;e&1923** dh /kkjk 30 ds izko/kkuksa ds vuqlkj ;g vihy iks"k.kh; ugha gksus ls [kkfjt gksus ;ksX; gSA

¶22

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

[2026:RJ-JP:10516]

[CMA-260/2017]

(3 of 5)

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.

¶27

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.

¶28

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.

¶29

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 examine the substantial questions of law arising in the case.

¶30

U;kf;d fu.kZ; North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs. Smt. Sujatha ¼iwoksZDr½ ds ekeys esa izfrikfnr O;oLFkk ds vuqlkj ;g Li"V gS fd fu;ksDrk o deZpkjh dk laca/k rF;ksa dk fo"k; gS vkSj tc rd bl fcanq ij fn;k x;k fu"d"kZ euekuk] vuqfpr ;k vk/kkjghu ugha gks] rc rd fof/k dk lkjoku iz'u varoZfyr ugha gksuk ekuk tk ldrkA fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykFkhZ chek daiuh dh vksj ls izLrqr U;kf;d

[CMA-260/2017]

[2026:RJ-JP:10516]

(4 of 5)

fu.kZ; Shantabai Ananda Jagtap & anr. Vs. Jayram Ganpati Jagtap & anr. ¼iwoksZDr½ esa Hkh ;g O;oLFkk izfrikfnr dh xbZ gS fd Dyse ;kfpdk rHkh iks"k.kh; gks ldrh gS] tc nkosnkj o foi{kh ds chp deZpkjh o fu;ksDrk dk laca/k izekf.kr gksrk gksA

¶35

mijksDr nksuksa U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa ds llEeku voyksdu ls Li"V gS fd fu;ksDrk o deZpkjh dk laca/k ;fn fu;kstudky ds nkSjku nq?kZVuk gksus vkfn ds fo"k; rF;ksa ls lacaf/kr gSa vkSj ml ij ;fn fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk miyC/k lkexzh o lk{; ij fopkj dj fu"d"kZ fn;k x;k gS rFkk tc rd ,slk fu"d"kZ euekuk ;k vuqfpr ugha gks] lk{; dk iqu% foospu djrs gq, vikLr fd;k tkuk vuqKs; ugha gSA

¶36

orZeku ekeys esa izkFkhZ }kjk viuh ekSf[kd l'kiFk dFkuksa esa ;g dFku fd;k gS fd og ?kVuk ds le; mijksDr okgu Lokeh foi{kh ds ;gka [kyklh ds :i esa fu;ksftr Fkk vkSj ml le; nq?kZVuk gksus ds rF; dks vU; xokg Qk:[k [kku }kjk Hkh izekf.kr fd;k gSA ;g ckr lgh gS fd fu;qfDr ds laca/k esa fu;qfDr vkns'k] lSysjh fLyi ;k vU; dksbZ fyf[kr nLrkost is'k ugha gq, gSa ijarq bl izdkj ds ekeys esa lkekU; :i ls ,sls nLrkost miyC/k ugha gksrs gSaA fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk fn;k x;k fu"d"kZ lk{; ds vHkko esa gks vFkok egRoiw.kZ lk{; dks utjvankt dj ikfjr fd;k x;k gks] ,slh fLFkfr ugha gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa bl fu"d"kZ o vihyk/khu fu.kZ; dks vuqfpr] voS/k vFkok euekuk ugha dgk tk ldrkA

¶37

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

¶38

(5 of 5) [CMA-260/2017]

¶39

[2026:RJ-JP:10516]

¶40

ifj.kker% vihykFkhZ&chek daiuh dh vksj ls izLrqr ;g vihy [kkfjt dh tkrh gS rFkk vihyk/khu fu.kZ; fnukad 19-07-2016 dh iqf"V dh tkrh gSA LFkxu vkosnu o vU; vkosnu] ;fn dksbZ yafcr gksa] rks os Hkh mDrkuqlkj fuLrkfjr fd;s tkrs gSaA

¶41

fopkj.k U;k;ky; dk vfHkys[k] ;fn izkIr gks j[kk gS] rks bl vkns'k dh izfr ds lkFk fopkj.k U;k;ky; dks izsf"kr fd;k tkosA

¶42

(UMA SHANKER VYAS),J

¶43

DINESH KUMAWAT /17

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Kamlesh Sharma Vs Shri Jeetmal Sharma

Rajendra Mehta S/O Late Shri Kanhaiya Lal Mehta, Vs Central Academy Shiksha Samiti

Badrilal Vs Babu Lal Thr Lrs and Ors.

Banti Meena S/O Ramprasad Vs State of Rajasthan

Sandeep Sharma S/O Radheshyam Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Sunant Sharma S/O Late Shri Sudarshan Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan