Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
United India Insurance Co Ltd vs Smt Kamlesh And Ors on 12 January, 2022
Author: Anoop Kumar Dhand
Bench: Anoop Kumar Dhand
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4464/2008
United India Insurance Company, Regional Office, Sahara
Chambers, Tonk Road, Jaipur Rajasthan, Through Mrs. Alka
Singhal, Deputy Manager.
----Appellant/Non-Claimant
Versus
1. Smt. Kamlesh W/o Late Shri Churamani, aged about 22
years, R/o Village Bagcholi Khar, Police Station Mania
District Dholpur Rajasthan.
2. Rohit Aged 2 Months Minor S/o Late Shri Churamani,
Through Mother Kamlesh W/o Late Shri Churamani, R/o
Village Bagcholi Khar, Police Station Mania District Dholpur
Rajasthan.
3. Smt. Laxmi Devi Alias Laccho W/o Shri Bhuri Singh, aged
about 45 years, R/o Village Bagcholi Khar, Police Station
Mania District Dholpur Rajasthan.
4. Bhuri Singh S/o Shri Sumer Singh, R/o Village Bagcholi
Khar, Police Station Mania District Dholpur Rajasthan.
-------Claimants/Respondents
5. Bunti Singh S/o Shri Parmal Singh, R/o Village Piprai, Police Station Sarai Chhola, District Muraina M.P. (Owner Of The Truck No. MP-06/E 4721)
----Respondent/Non-Claimant For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajpal Chaudhary through VC For Respondent(s) : Mr. D.K. Garg through VC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Judgment 12/01/2022 The instant civil misc. appeal has been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company under Section 30 (a) of the (Downloaded on 17/01/2022 at 09:22:56 PM) (2 of 4) [CMA-4464/2008] Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 [for short 'the Act of 1923] claiming the following reliefs:
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that your Lordships may graciously be pleased to admit and allow this appeal and call for the record of Claim Case No. WC/F/35/2006 (Kamlesh Vs. United Indian Insurance Company) from the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Dholpur and further be pleased to quash and set-aside the impugned award dated 25.07.2008 against the appellant-Insurance Company with cost throughout.
Any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper, be passed in the interest of justice and to grant adequate relief to the humble appellant- Insurance Company."
At the outset, learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs. Smt. Sujatha, reported in 2019 (11) SCC 514, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the appeal filed by the appellant-Insurance Company is liable to be dismissed if no substantial question of law is involved therein. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held in Para Nos. 9 and 10 as under:-
"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 dependants 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 (Downloaded on 17/01/2022 at 09:22:56 PM) (3 of 4) [CMA-4464/2008] 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 aforementioned 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 finding of fact."
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company submits that the workman/labour was not covered under the policy, hence, Insurance company is not liable to make the payment of compensation to the claimants.
I have heard the counsel appearing for the respective parties, scanned and scrutinized the entire material made available to the Court.
In Para 9 of the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation (supra), it has been specifically held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the question as to whether there was any coverage obtained by the employer to cover the incident or the labour/workman is a question of fact which has already been adjudicated by the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation.
The aforementioned objection taken by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company is essentially a question of fact and that has already been proved with the aid of evidence by claimants-respondents before the Commissioner. Once findings have been recorded, then these findings are treated as the findings of fact which cannot be interfered within the scope or ambit of Section 30 of the Act of (Downloaded on 17/01/2022 at 09:22:56 PM) (4 of 4) [CMA-4464/2008] 1923 as it is the mandate of the proviso attached to Section 30 of the Act of 1923 that an appeal would lie to the High Court purely on the basis of substantial question of law.
Since appeal is not qualifying to have a substantial question of law which is mandatory under Section 30 of the Act of 1923, the objections regarding the policy not having comprehensive coverage has rightly been decided by the learned Commissioner. Therefore, no interference is called for in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.
All the pending applications, if any, also stand dismissed.
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ritu/2 (Downloaded on 17/01/2022 at 09:22:56 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)