Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti vs Prabhakar Maruti Garvali & Anr on 10 November, 2006
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)No.748 of 2016
Even in paragraph 42 of the decision in Shakuntala
Chandrakant Shreshti(supra), this Court has made it clear
that a question of law would arise when the same is not
dependent on examination of evidence and which may not
require any fresh investigation of fact. A question of law
would arise, of course, when the finding is perverse or when
no legal evidence is adduced to establish the jurisdictional
facts. The observations made by the High Court in the
present case in paragraph 21 appear to be rather of
assumptive nature than of specific conclusion on perversity.
In other words, the view as taken by the Commissioner was
the one based on the material placed on record, which
basically established that the deceased was indeed employed
as a driver on the vehicle; he was 30 years of age; and he
died while on duty and his demise due to cardiac arrest was
attributable to his job of driver. There had not been shown
any other background aspect or any other clinching feature
because of which death of the workman, a 30-year-old
person, could be attributed to any other cause. That being
the position, the view taken by the Commissioner had been a
possible view of the matter in the given set of facts and
circumstances; and there was no reason for the High Court
to interfere with the same, particularly when the case did not
involve any substantial question of law within the meaning of
Section 30 of Employees Compensation Act, 1933.