Nagar Parishad Alwar Thr Commissioner Vs Smt Somoti Devi and Ors. — Rajasthan HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Nagar Parishad Alwar Thr Commissioner Vs Smt Somoti Devi and Ors. — Rajasthan HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the employer's appeal under Section 30 of the Act of 1923 against the Commissioner's award is maintainable — i.e., whether the points raised (whether the lessee operated the vehicle, and whether the contract was executed by the lessee) constitute a substantial question of law.

Court's answer

In view of the aforesaid Supreme Court decision and the provisions of Section 30 of the Act of 1923, the appeal to the High Court is maintainable only on a substantial question of law.

Ratio / Principle

Whether the lessee was operating the vehicle, and whether the contract was executed by the lessee, are questions of fact to be proved with evidence before the trial court, and cannot be regarded as substantial questions of law.

Key takeaways

Since no question of law arises in this case, the appeal is liable to be dismissed; dismissing the appeal, the decision dated 15-03-2018 is affirmed.ratio¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Appeal under S. 30, Workmen's Compensation Act 1923 by employer Nagar Parishad, Alwar against the decision dt. 15-03-2018 of the Court of Commissioner (Employee Compensation), Alwar in W.C.A.(F) No. D-26/2009, which had directed payment of Rs. 3,68,340/- as compensation to the claimants and imposed a Rs. 25,000/- penalty. Appellant pleaded the vehicle had been leased to respondent No. 2, whose operation caused the employee's death, absolving the Parishad under the lease terms. Counsel for the respondents relied on North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation v. Smt. Sujatha, (2019) 11 SCC 514 (paras 9-12 reproduced): a S. 30 appeal lies only against the orders in clauses (a)-(e) with the rider that it must involve a substantial question of law, and is not a regular first appeal akin to S. 96 CPC. Adopting that decision, the Court held that the points raised - whether the lessee operated the vehicle and whether the contract was executed by the lessee - were matters of fact to be proved by evidence before the trial court and did not constitute substantial questions of law; finding none, it dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Commissioner's decision dt. 15-03-2018. (Uma Shanker Vyas, J.)

[2026:RJ-JP:5627]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3019/2018

Nagar Parishad, Alwar Through Its Commissioner, Alwar Raj

----Appellant

Versus

Smt. Somoti Devi W/o Late Shri Durga Prasad Prajatpat,

Chaganlal S/o Late Durgaprasad Prajapat,

Amit Kumar S/o Late Durgaprasad,

Ashok S/o Late Durgaprasad Prajapat

Laxmi D/o Late Durgaprasad Prajapat, No. 3 Tp 5 Are Minor Throgh Natural Guardian Smt. Somoti Devi R/o Shivsagar Colony Ki Pal, Alwar Raj

Inder Lal Saini, Electric Contractor, Patel Nagar, Johada, Alwar Raj

----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Brij Kishore Sharma, Adv. For : Mr. Mohit Gupta, Adv. Respondent(s) Mr. Lekhpal Singh Rathore, Adv.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS

Judgment / Order

06/02/2026

vihykFkhZ&uxj ifj"kn vyoj dh vksj ls ;g vihy fo}ku U;k;ky; vk;qDr deZpkjh {kfriwfrZ] vyoj }kjk izdj.k W.C.A.(F) No. D-26/2009 esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 15-03-2018 ls O;fFkr gksdj is'k dh gS ftlds ek/;e ls

[2026:RJ-JP:5627]

(2 of 4) [CMA-3019/2018]

nkosnkjksa ds i{k esa 3]68]340@& :i;s izfrdj fnyk;s tkus dk vkns'k fn;k x;k vkSj 25]000@& :i;s tqekZuk Hkh vf/kjksfir fd;k x;kA

fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykFkhZ&chek dEiuh rFkk izR;FkhZ dh cgl lquh x;h] vfHkys[k dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA

fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykFkhZ dk fuosnu gS fd muds }kjk izR;FkhZ dze&2 dks Bsdk ns j[kk Fkk] Bsdsnkj }kjk ykijokgh cjrh x;h gS vkSj bl dkj.k mlds deZpkjh dh e`R;q gksuk crk;k x;k gS tcfd vihykFkhZ vkSj Bsdsnkj ds chp esa tks lafonk gks j[kh gS] mlds vuqlkj ;fn Bsdsnkj dh ykijokgh ls dksbZ nq?kZVuk gksrh gS rks mlds fy, uxj ifj"kn&vihykFkhZ nkf;Rok/khu ugha gSA

blds foijhr fo}ku vf/koDrk izR;FkhZ&nkosnkjksa dh vksj ls ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; dk U;kf;d fu.kZ; North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs. Smt. Sujatha (2019) 11 SCC 514 is'k djrs gq, fuosnu fd;k fd tks vkifRr mBk;h x;h gS] og rF; ls lacaf/kr gS rFkk fof/k dk dksbZ lkjoku iz'u bl ekeys esa vUroZfyr ugha gS] vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa vf/kfu;e&1923 dh /kkjk&30 ds izko/kkuksa ds vuqlkj ;g vihy iks"k.kh; ugha gSA

ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation (Supra) ds iSjk la[;k&9] 10] 11 rFkk 12 fuEukuqlkj gS&

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

[2026:RJ-JP:5627]

[CMA-3019/2018]

(3 of 4)

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.

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.

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.

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.

mijksDr fu.kZ; esa izfrikfnr fof/kd O;oLFkk rFkk vf/kfu;e&1923 dh /kkjk 30 ds izko/kkuksa ds vuqlkj vihy ek= fof/k ds lkjoku iz'u ij gh iks"k.kh; gSA orZeku ekeys esa tks fof/k dk lkjoku iz'u izLrkfor fd;k x;k gS] og

[2026:RJ-JP:5627]

vUroZfyr ugha gSA orZeku ekeys esa Bsdsnkj dh ykijokgh Fkh vFkok ugha] ;g rF; dk fo"k; gSA blh izdkj lafonk Bsdsnkj }kjk djk;h x;h Fkh ;k ugha] ;g Hkh rF; dk fo"k; gS vkSj fopkj.k U;k;k; esa lk{; izLrqr dj ;g rF; izekf.kr fd;s tkus dk fo"k; gS] bl iz'u dks fof/k dk lkjoku iz'u ugha ekuk tk ldrkA

pwafd bl ekeys esa fof/k dk dksbZ iz'u vUroZfyr ugha gS] vr% ;g vihy [kkfjt gksus ;ksX; gSA mijksDr foospukuqlkj vihyk/khu fu.kZ; fnukad 15-03-2018 dh iqf"V djrs gq, ;g vihy [kkfjt dh tkrh gSaA

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

(UMA SHANKER VYAS),J

Mittal /22