Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
United India Insurance Co Ltd vs Smt Kesari Devi And Others on 27 October, 2021
(1 of 3) [CMA-3117/2015]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.3117/2015
United India Insurance Company Ltd., Jaipur Road, Devipura,
Sikar Through Manager TP Claim Hub, 93, Sapphire Center,
Ajmer Road, Jaipur Insurance Company Vehicle Jeep No. RJ-18-
UA-0233
----Appellant
Versus
1. Smt. Kesari Devi W/o Late Shri Bansidhar Meena, age 58
years R/o Village Gurara, Tehsil Khandela, District Sikar
Raj.
2. Rohitash S/o Shri Prahlad Ray, R/o Village Sultana, Tehsil
Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu Raj. Registered Owner Jeep
No. RJ 18 UA-0233
3. Gopalram S/o Shri Mohanlal Gurjar, R/o Village Sewali
Tehsil Khandela, District Sikar Power Of Attorney Holder
Vehicle Jeep No. RJ 18 UA-0233
----Respondents
connected with S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.3652/2015 Keshari Devi W/o Late Shri Bansidhar Meena, aged 58 years, Resident of Village Gurara, Tehsil Khandela, District Sikar
----Appellant Versus
1. Rohitash S/o Prahlad Rai, R/o Village Sultana, Tehsil Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu. (Employer cum Registered owner)
2. Gopalram S/o Mohan Lal Gurjar, R/o Village Sewali Tehsil Khandela, District Sikar (Employer Cum Power Of Attorney)
3. United India Insurance Company Limited, Division Office at Devipura, Sikar having its regional office at Vishal Chambers Tonk Road, Jaipur through its Regional Manager (Insurer).
----Respondent
(Downloaded on 28/10/2021 at 10:54:07 PM)
(2 of 3) [CMA-3117/2015]
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Amarnath Pareek
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinay Mathur
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA Order 27/10/2021 S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3117/2015:-
Admittedly, the present appeal has been filed by the insurance company on the question of quantum.
In case of Golla Rajanna and Others Versus Divisional Manager & Another reported in (2017) 1 SCC 45, the Apex Court has observed as under:-
"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 questions 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."
In another case of North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs. Sujatha reported in (2019) 11 SCC 514, the Supreme Court has observed 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, (Downloaded on 28/10/2021 at 10:54:07 PM) (3 of 3) [CMA-3117/2015] 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 dependents 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 afore-mentioned 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."
In view of the judgments passed by the Apex Court in both the aforesaid cases, the appeal would lie only on question of law and the said question as raised by the learned counsel in the present appeal cannot be said to be pure question of law.
In view thereof, the present appeal is dismissed as there is no substantial question of law involved. S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3652/2015:-
Learned counsel for the appellant/s does not press the present appeal.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed as not pressed.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J Karan/65 & 76 (Downloaded on 28/10/2021 at 10:54:07 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)