Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
I C I C I Lombard vs Ali Hasan And Anr on 28 April, 2022
Author: Anoop Kumar Dhand
Bench: Anoop Kumar Dhand
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3242/2012
I C I C I Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., through its
Manager, Regional office at Basant Vihar, Gopalpura Mod, Tonk
Road, Jaipur
At present Bhagwate Bhawan, 2nd Floor, Govt. Hostel Crossing,
Jaipur
----Appellant/Non-claimant
Versus
1. Ali Hasan S/o Shri Hameed Beg, R/o Village Kayamganj, Distt.
Raipur (UP)
------Respondent/claimant
2. Varun Road Lines Ltd., Plot No. 619, Near Telco Service Station, Rangpuri, Mahipal, New Delhi-110037, through its Manager (S.R., Admn. And Legal)
----Respondent/Non-claimant For Appellant(s) : Mr. R.S. Sinsinwar Mr. Kapil Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ram Singh Rathore Mr. Gajendra Singh Rathore HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 28/04/2022 Instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant- Insurance Company under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 [for short 'the Act of 1923] against the impugned judgment and award dated 25.06.2012 passed by the Court of learned Commissioner Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, Jaipur-II, Jaipur (Raj.) (for short 'the learned Commissioner') in claim case No. WCCNF 325/2010 by which the claim petition filed by the claimant-respondent has been allowed (Downloaded on 24/12/2022 at 08:12:57 PM) (2 of 7) [CMA-3242/2012] and the Insurance company has been directed to pay compensation of Rs. 2,05,027/- to the claimant-respondent.
Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that the claimant has submitted the claim petition under the provisions of the Act of 1923 before the learned Commissioner and during the pendency of the said claim petition, he submitted one more claim petition bearing No. 1874/2011 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (for short 'the Tribunal') and the same was dismissed on 29.05.2014, so the claim petition filed by the claimant under the Act of 1923 was not maintainable. Counsel further submitted that the claimant has failed to prove the relationship of employee and employer, hence, the provisions of the Act of 1923 are not attracted, but overlooking these facts the learned Commissioner has erred in allowing the claim petition filed by the claimant respondent.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the appellant- Insurance Company. Counsel for the claimant-respondent submitted that though the claimant has submitted a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Tribunal, but the same was not decided on merits as the claimant failed to appear before the Tribunal, hence, the same was dismissed for want of his evidence vide judgment dated 29.05.2014. Counsel for the claimant-respondent has placed reliance on the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Prem and Ors. Vs. Amar Jeet Singh and Ors. in SB Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1799/2011 wherein this Court has held that the claimants cannot be allowed to take double benefit of two claims filed under two different statutes i.e. (Downloaded on 24/12/2022 at 08:12:57 PM) (3 of 7) [CMA-3242/2012] under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. Counsel further submitted that findings of facts have been recorded by the Tribunal with regard to the relationship of employee and employee and the same cannot be interfered by the High Court while exercising its jurisdiction contained under Section 30 of the Act of 1923. In support of his contentions, counsel for the claimant respondent has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Golla Rajanna etc. vs. The Divisional Manager and Ors. reported in 2017(1) SCC 45" and "North East Karnatka Transport Corporation Vs. Smt. Sujatha reported in 2019 (11) SCC 514".
Co-jointly counsel for the respondents prayed for rejection of the appeal.
Heard counsel appearing for the parties and perused the impugned judgments and documents available on the record.
So far as the first contention raised by the counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company that the claimant has filed two separate claim petitions for getting compensation with regard to the same accident is concerned, the claimant is not entitled to get any compensation.
From a bare perusal of the judgment dated 29.05.2014 passed by the Tribunal, it is clear that the said claim petition has been dismissed for want of evidence of the claimant and in the said petition, the claimant has not got any sort of compensation, so the objection taken by the counsel for the appellant is not tenable in the eye of law as per the view taken by this Court in the case of Prem (supra).
(Downloaded on 24/12/2022 at 08:12:57 PM)
(4 of 7) [CMA-3242/2012] So far as the second contention raised by the counsel for the appellant with regard to relationship of employee and employer is concerned, the same is a finding of fact which cannot be re-agitated before this Court because the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Golla Rajanna (supra) and North East Karnatka Transport Corporation (supra) have held that the limited jurisdiction has been given to the High Court confined to the substantial question of law only and the High Court cannot venture and reappreciate the evidence and finding of fact recorded on the evidence led by both the parties.
In the considered opinion of this Court, the findings given by the learned Commissioner are based on sound appreciation of evidence and the same is not liable to be disturbed by this Court.
In the opinion of this Court, the learned Commissioner is the last authority on facts as it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Golla Rajanna (supra). It has been held in Para No. 8 & 10 as under:
"8. Section 30 of the Act provides for appeal to the High Court. To the extent, the provision reads as follows;
30. Appeals.-(1) An appeal shall lie to the High Court from the following orders of a Commissioner, namely:
(a) an order awarding as compensation a lump sum whether by way of redemption of a half-monthly payment or otherwise or disallowing a claim in full or in part for a lump sum;
[(aa) an order awarding interest or penalty Under Section 4A;]
(b) an order refusing to allow redemption of a half- monthly payment;
(c) an order providing for the distribution of compensation among the dependants of a deceased workman, or disallowing any claim of a person alleging himself to be such dependant;
(d) an order allowing or disallowing any claim for the amount of an indemnity under the provisions of Sub- section (2) of Section 12;
or
(Downloaded on 24/12/2022 at 08:12:57 PM)
(5 of 7) [CMA-3242/2012]
(e) an order refusing to register a memorandum of agreement or registering the same or providing for the registration of the same subject to conditions:
Provided that no appeal shall lie against any order unless a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal and in the case of an order other than an order such as is referred to in Clause (b), unless the amount in dispute in the appeal is not less than three hundred rupees (Emphasis supplied)
10. Under the scheme of the Act, the workmen's Compensation Commissioner is the last authority on facts. The Parliament has thought it fit to restrict the scope of the appeal only to substantial question of law, being a welfare legislation. Unfortunately, the High Court has missed this crucial question of limited jurisdiction and has ventured to re-appreciate the evidence and recorded its own findings on percentage of disability for which also there is no basis. The whole exercise made by the High Court is not within the competence of the High Court under Section 30 of the Act."
The similar view has been expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of North East Karnatka Transport Corporation (supra). It has specifically held in Para Nos. 9 to 12 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 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 findings of fact.
11. The appeal provided under Section 30 of the Act to the High Court against the order of the Commissioner lies (Downloaded on 24/12/2022 at 08:12:57 PM) (6 of 7) [CMA-3242/2012] only against the specific orders set out in clauses (a) to
(e) of Section 30 of the Act with a further rider contained in the first proviso to the section that the appeal must involve substantial questions 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 he 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."
In "Smt. Ram Sakhi Devi Vs. Chhatra Devi", reported in JT 2005(6) SC 167, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that without formulating substantial question of law appeal cannot be sustained.
In "M/s Krishna Weaving Mills, Ajmer Vs. Smt. Chandra Bhaga Devi wide of Mool Chand & Anr.", reported in 1985(1) WLN 455, this Court while dealing with Workmen's Compensation Act has laid down law that unless there is any question of public importance and no final interpretation available while the substantial question of law is arising, the appeal under the Workmen's Compensation Act cannot be entertained. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows:-
"8. Moreover, under S. 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act only substantial question of law can be agitated. In the present case, I am convinced that there is no substantial question of law involved.
9. The question of public importance and question on which no final interpretation is available are known as substantial question of law. Even if this definition is further extended, it will have to bear in mind that there is vast difference between the question of law and substantial question of law. It is only when the question of law is not well settled and it is of importance, it would become a substantial questions of law."(Downloaded on 24/12/2022 at 08:12:57 PM)
(7 of 7) [CMA-3242/2012] This Court finds no good ground to call for any interference on any of the factual findings. None of the factual findings are found to be either perverse or arbitrary or based on no evidence or against any provision of law. This Court accordingly uphold these findings.
Since the appeal is not qualifying to have a substantial question of law, which is mandatory under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.
Therefore, no interference is called for in this appeal and the same is dismissed.
All the pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ritu/12 (Downloaded on 24/12/2022 at 08:12:57 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)