ORDER :

1. Instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 [for short ‘the Act of 1923] against the impugned judgment and award dated 25.06.2012 passed by the Court of learned Commissioner Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, Jaipur-II, Jaipur (Raj.) (for short ‘the learned Commissioner’) in claim case No. WCCNF 325/2010 by which the claim petition filed by the claimant-respondent has been allowed and the Insurance company has been directed to pay compensation of Rs. 2,05,027/- to the claimant-respondent.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that the claimant has submitted the claim petition under the provisions of the Act of 1923 before the learned Commissioner and during the pendency of the said claim petition, he submitted one more claim petition bearing No. 1874/2011 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 1, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (for short ‘the Tribunal’) and the same was dismissed on 29.05.2014, so the claim petition filed by the claimant under the Act of 1923 was not maintainable. Counsel further submitted that the claimant has failed to prove the relationship of employee and employer, hence, the provisions of the Act of 1923 are not attracted, but overlooking these facts the learned Commissioner has erred in allowing the claim petition filed by the claimant respondent.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company. Counsel for the claimant-respondent submitted that though the claimant has submitted a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Tribunal, but the same was not decided on merits as the claimant failed to appear before the Tribunal, hence, the same was dismissed for want of his evidence vide judgment dated 29.05.2014. Counsel for the claimant-respondent has placed reliance on the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Prem and Others vs. Amar Jeet Singh and Others in SB Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1799/2011 wherein this Court has held that the claimants cannot be allowed to take double benefit of two claims filed under two different statutes i.e. under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. Counsel further submitted that findings of facts have been recorded by the Tribunal with regard to the relationship of employee and employee and the same cannot be interfered by the High Court while exercising its jurisdiction contained under Section 30 of the Act of 1923. In support of his contentions, counsel for the claimant respondent has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Golla Rajanna vs. The Divisional Manager and Others, 2017 (1) SCC 45 and North East Karnataka Transport Corporation vs. Smt. Sujatha, 2019 (11) SCC 514.

4. Co-jointly counsel for the respondents prayed for rejection of the appeal.

5. Heard counsel appearing for the parties and perused the impugned judgments and documents available on the record.

6. So far as the first contention raised by the counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company that the claimant has filed two separate claim petitions for getting compensation with regard to the same accident is concerned, the claimant is not entitled to get any compensation.

7. From a bare perusal of the judgment dated 29.05.2014 passed by the Tribunal, it is clear that the said claim petition has been dismissed for want of evidence of the claimant and in the said petition, the claimant has not got any sort of compensation, so the objection taken by the counsel for the appellant is not tenable in the eye of law as per the view taken by this Court in the case of Prem (supra).

8. So far as the second contention raised by the counsel for the appellant with regard to relationship of employee and employer is concerned, the same is a finding of fact which cannot be re-agitated before this Court because the Hon’ble Apex Court