The scope of interference in an appeal under the Employees' Compensation Act is limited to substantial questions of law, and findings of fact proved either way are not likely to be interfered with.

JUDGMENT

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J.(Oral)

1. By way of present appeal filed under Section 30 of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter, referred to as the 'EC Act'), the appellant has assailed the order dated 03.02.2016 passed by learned Commissioner, Employees' Compensation, New Delhi in Case No.WCD/191/NW/03/1084-86 whereby the claim petition filed by respondent Nos.1 to 7/claimants was allowed and the appellant held liable to deposit compensation alongwith interest.

2. The solitary contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that in the proceedings before the learned Commissioner, the employer-employee relationship between respondent No.8 and deceased/Balvinder Singh was not established as both were neighbours, living in vicinity of each other.

3. A perusal of the claim petition would show that the deceased was claimed to have been employed with respondent No.8 as a second driver on Truck bearing registration No.HR-37-6015 for about six months at a salary of Rs.5,000/- per month. It was further claimed that on 22.07.2003 at about 1:30 p.m., respondent No.8 asked the deceased to remove electrical wire, which was hanging over the said truck. While following direction of respondent No.1 and in the process of removing over hanging wire, the deceased got electrocuted and died. A case bearing FIR No.476/2003 was registered under Section 304A IPC at Police Station Jahangirpuri. Statedly, the truck in question was insured with the appellant and the deceased was 34 years of age at the time of his death.

4. The claimants appeared and filed their evidence by way of affidavit. While the appellant filed a written statement, respondent No.8 was proceeded ex-parte. The learned Commissioner, after considering the evidence, arrived at a conclusion that the deceased was employed with respondent No.8 and died as a result of electrocution suffered out of and during the course of employment.

5. At the outset, this Court deems it expedient to outline the scope of appeal filed under Section 30 of the EC Act as delineated in North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation v. Sujatha reported as (2019) 11 SCC 514. In the captioned case, the Supreme Court has reiterated that the scope of interference in an appeal filed under Section 30 of EC Act is limited to substantial questions of law and findings of facts proved either way, are not to be likely interfered with. Relevant excerpt from the decision is reproduced hereunder:

"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 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 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 othe