Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
The New India Assurance Co.Ltd vs Jasraj And Ors on 17 October, 2019
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1819/2006
The New India Assurance Co.ltd.
----Appellant
Versus
Jasraj And Ors.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Anil Bachhawat with Mr. S.R.
Paliwal
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Surana
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order 17/10/2019
1. This misc. appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 has been preferred by appellant- Insurance Company claiming the following reliefs:
"a. That the judgment and award dated 28.06.2006 passed by the learned Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Sirohi in claim case No.WC/F/11/2004 may kindly be quashed and set aside.
b. Any other relief, which your Honour may deem just and proper may also kindly be granted in favour of the appellant."
2. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has submitted that the substantial question of law involved in the matter pertains to the income which has been taken to be Rs.4000/- for Heavy Motor Vehicle whereas the same should have been taken as per the prescribed parameters of minimum wages for the skilled labour. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company also raises the issue of interest. (Downloaded on 23/10/2019 at 08:28:48 PM)
(2 of 3) [CMA-1819/2006]
3. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has relied upon the judgment rendered by this Hon'ble Court at Jaipur Bench in Pushi & Ors. Vs. Kulwant Singh & Ors. reported in RLW 2005(3) Raj. 1803, wherein this Hon'ble Court has held that if exact assumption of the income is not possible then it can be taken to be Rs.1500/- per month.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents however, submits that both the aforementioned questions are not the substantial questions of law.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the precedent law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Ram Sakhi Devi Vs. Chhatra Devi, reported in JT 2005(6) SC 167 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that without formulating substantial question of law, the appeal cannot be sustained.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent has further shown to this Court the judgment rendered by this Hon'ble Court at Jaipur Bench in M/s. Krishna Weaving Mills, Ajmer Vs. Smt. Chandra Bhaga Devi widow of Mool Chand & Anr., reported in 1985(1) WLN 455 wherein this Hon'ble Court, while dealing with the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, has laid down the law that unless there was a question of public importance and there was no final interpretation available while the substantial question of law was 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 questions of law can be agitated. In the (Downloaded on 23/10/2019 at 08:28:48 PM) (3 of 3) [CMA-1819/2006] 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. The employer should not indiscriminately file appeals against poor workman's dependents. No notice is given before Fatal Accidents to the victim and how can want of notice to employer be fatal accident again, depriving compensation to unfortunate victims or dependents in cases of the Compensation Act."
7. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out any substantial question of law in this appeal.
8. 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, no interference is called for in the present misc. appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, it is a settled law that the interest has to be taken by the Insurance Company. All pending applications stand disposed of.
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.
30-Zeeshan/-
(Downloaded on 23/10/2019 at 08:28:48 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)