Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
The New India Assurance Co.Ltd vs Mohd.Salim And Ors on 17 October, 2019
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1047/2006
The New India Assurance Co.ltd.
----Appellant
Versus
Mohd.salim And Ors.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Jagdish Vyas
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order 17/10/2019
1. Despite service, no has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the following substantial questions of law are involved in the present appeal :-
1. Whether the disability certificate issued by a medical practioner could be relied upon without calling the Doctor in the witness box.
2. Whether the disability certificate issued by a Doctor comes under the definition of public document.
3. Whether the learned Commissioner has jurisdiction to assess the loss of earning capacity in case of permanent partial disablement resulting from non-scheduled injury contrary to the assessment made by the qualified medical practioner.
4. Whether learned Commissioner was justified in holding the appellant company liable to pay the interest on the amount of compensation.(Downloaded on 22/10/2019 at 08:39:29 PM)
(2 of 3) [CMA-1047/2006]
5. Whether the learned commissioner was justified in
assessing the monthly wages of the claimant as Rs.2,000/-
and thereby awarding the compensation of Rs.1,52,627/-
3. This Court finds that the questions raised are not substantial questions of law, but the same pertain to the factual matrix, and thus, the appellant cannot be permitted to do so, as it is barred by Section 30 of Workmen's Compensation Act.
4. 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.
5. In M/s. Krishna Weaving Mills, Ajmer Vs. Smt. Chandra Bhaga Devi widow of Mool Chand & Anr., reported in 1985(1) WLN 455, this Hon'ble Court at Jaipur Bench while dealing with Workmen's Compensation Act has laid down 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 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 (Downloaded on 22/10/2019 at 08:39:29 PM) (3 of 3) [CMA-1047/2006] 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."
6. Since the appeal is not qualifying to have a substantial question of law, as already indicated above, which is mandatory under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, therefore, on that count, no interference is called for in the present appeal.
7. This Court takes note of the fact that the principal amount has already been disbursed 15 years ago. However, learned counsel for the appellant has been able to demonstrate that there is a gross delay in filing the claim petition in question, as the claim petition had been filed after a delay of five years. The delay in filing the claim petition, in the opinion of this Court, does not entitle the payment of interest. That apart, the payment of interest has been stayed by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 04.08.2006, and therefore, the present appeal is disposed of, while doing away with the liability to pay the interest stipulated in the impugned order. The amount of interest shall be refunded to the Insurance Company-appellant. All pending applications stand disposed of.
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J 26-Sudheer/-
(Downloaded on 22/10/2019 at 08:39:29 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)