Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
United India Insurance Co Ltd vs Jagdish Saini And Another on 20 May, 2022
Author: Anoop Kumar Dhand
Bench: Anoop Kumar Dhand
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2104/2010
United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Regional Office, Sahara
Chambers, through its Senior Divisional Manager, Divisional
office, Tonk Road, Jaipur.
----Defendant-Appellant
Versus
1. Jagdish Saini son of Arjun Lal aged about 35 years, resident of
Nagwala ki Dhani, Near Government School, Viratnagar, District
Jaipur.
----respondent-claimant
2. Balluram son of Sh. Mool Chand, resident of Ward No.13, Near Qilla, Viratnagar, District Jaipur.
(Owner of Vehicle No.(Tractor) RJ 21 3R-5361
----Respondent-non-claimant For Appellant(s) : Mr. Amarnath Pareek Mr. Sukh Ram Jatav For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ritesh Jain HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Judgment 20/05/2022 Instant appeal has been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company against the judgment dated 30.06.2010 passed by the Court of Commissioner, Workmens Compensation, Jaipur District II (for short 'the Commissioner') in case No.WCCNF-71/2008 by which the claim petition filed by the claimant-respondent has been allowed and the appellant-Insurance Company was directed to pay compensation of Rs.2,65,204/- with interest. (Downloaded on 24/12/2022 at 10:18:30 PM)
(2 of 8) [CMA-2104/2010]
Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company
submits that the accident occurred by thresher which is not a part of Tractor.
He further submits that after the accident, no FIR was lodged. Hence, it cannot be believed that there was any negligence on the part of respondent No.2.
He also submits that as per the Insurance Policy, the maximum amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- could have been awarded, but the Tribunal erred in awarding compensation of Rs. 2,65,204/-.
Counsel further submits that the claimant-respondent was the owner of the field where the incident occurred, hence the Commissioner has erred in allowing the claim petition filed by the claimant-respondent.
Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimant-respondent opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the appellant- Insurance Company and submits that the Division Bench of this Court has answered a reference in the case of Gopali Kushwaha Vs. Bhanwar Singh and Anr., reported in 2017(1) DNJ (Raj.) 88 in which the issue before the Division Bench was that "whether thresher attached to the Tractor in an agricultural field for sifting the grain from the chaff can be determined as a motor vehicle or vehicle or integral part of the Tractor?" The aforesaid reference was answered by the Division Bench and it was held that if the thresher is attached with the Tractor, only then it is motor vehicle not otherwise subject to fulfilling such requisite conditions of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Counsel further submitted that after the aforesaid answered by the Division Bench, two co-ordinate Benches of this Court dealt (Downloaded on 24/12/2022 at 10:18:30 PM) (3 of 8) [CMA-2104/2010] the same issue in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Hanuman Singh & Anr. (S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.5500/2009) and decided the same against the Insurance Company.
Counsel also submits that lodging of FIR is not necessary in such type of matters and this fact has been appreciated by this Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Roop Raj & Anr. (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.5311/2008) decided on 13.01.2009.
Lastly, counsel for the claimant-respondent submitted that so far as the question raised by the Insurance Company that the upper limit of the amount of the policy was Rs. 2,00,000/- only is not sustainable for reasons that no such substantial question of law has been formulated by the appellant-Insurance Company in the memo of appeal. Hence, he argued that there is no substance in the appeal and arguments raised by the appellant-Insurance Company are finding of fact which cannot be re-appreciated by this Court by exercising its jurisdiction contained under Section 30 of the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923.
Heard counsel for the parties, considered the arguments and perused the record.
It is not in dispute that the Division Bench of this Court by formulating the question in the case of Gopali Kushwaha (supra) has decided the issue raised by the appellant-Insurance Company that whether the thresher attached to the Tractor is not a vehicle and the same was not insured and it was answered in Para No.11 as under:-
"In that view of the matter and taking into consideration the over all view taken by all other Courts, we are of the opinion that the if the Thrasher is attached with (Downloaded on 24/12/2022 at 10:18:30 PM) (4 of 8) [CMA-2104/2010] the tractor, then it will include as a vehicle. In that view of the matter, we answer the question accordingly. However, we make it clear that if the Thrasher is attached with the tractor, only then it is a motor vehicle and not otherwise, subject to fulfilling other requisite conditions of the Motor Vehicles Act"
Following the aforesaid judgment, co-ordinate Bench of this Court rejected the same arguments raised by the appellant- Insurance Company in the case of Hanuman Singh (supra). So far as the contention with regard to not lodging the FIR and the upper limit of payment of Rs. 2,00,000/- is concerned, the same has not been formulated as question of law in the memo of appeal submitted by the appellant-Insurance Company and argument raised by the counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company are based on finding of fact which cannot be appreciated as the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Golla Rajanna Etc. vs. The Divisional Manager And Anr." reported in 2017(1) SCC 45 and "North East Karnatka Transport Corporation Vs. Smt. Sujatha" reported in 2019 (11) SCC 514, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court held that the finding of fact cannot be re-appreciated while deciding the appeal against the award and the appeal filed against the award passed by the learned Commissioner is not maintainable if any substantial question of law is not involved.
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 (Downloaded on 24/12/2022 at 10:18:30 PM) (5 of 8) [CMA-2104/2010] 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
(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 schment 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."
(Downloaded on 24/12/2022 at 10:18:30 PM)
(6 of 8) [CMA-2104/2010] The similar view has been expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sujatha (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 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 (Downloaded on 24/12/2022 at 10:18:30 PM) (7 of 8) [CMA-2104/2010] 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 as question of public importance and there is 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."
It is the settled position of law that 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.
The judgments cited by counsel for the appellant are not applicable in the present case, looking to its facts and circumstances, which are distinguishable. 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 (Downloaded on 24/12/2022 at 10:18:30 PM) (8 of 8) [CMA-2104/2010] 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.
Stay application and all the pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
Record of the Court below be sent back forthwith.
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Pravesh/11 (Downloaded on 24/12/2022 at 10:18:30 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)