Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Anoop Kumar Dhand, J.
National Insurance Company Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Tara Chand Rawat & Ors. – Respondents
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 8096/2011
Decided On : 28-06-2022
Workmen's Compensation Act - Territorial Jurisdiction - Section 30 - Section 21
Fact of the Case:
The appellant-Insurance Company challenged the judgment and award allowing the claim petition filed by the claimant-respondent under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The appellant argued lack of territorial jurisdiction, absence of employer-employee relationship, and incorrect computation of disability.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accident occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of the Commissioner and the claim petition was rightly preferred. The court also held that the relationship of employer and employee is a finding of fact and cannot be re-appreciated by the appellate court. The court emphasized the limited jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 30 of the Act to substantial questions of law only.
Issues: Territorial jurisdiction, existence of employer-employee relationship, computation of disability
Ratio Decidendi: The Commissioner has jurisdiction based on the claimant's residence and the location of the accident. Findings of fact, such as the relationship of employer and employee, are not open to re-evaluation by the appellate court. The High Court's jurisdiction under Section 30 is limited to substantial questions of law.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, stating that no interference is warranted in the impugned judgment.
JUDGMENT
Anoop Kumar Dhand, J. - 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') challenging the judgment and award dated 31.10.2011 by which the claim petition filed by the claimant-respondent has been allowed and the appellant-Insurance Company has been directed to pay compensation of Rs. 7,18,218/- to the claimant-respondent with interest.
2. Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submits that the accident occurred at Ajmer while the injured was resident of village-Rajgarh, District Ajmer and he has submitted the claim petition before the Court of Commissioner-Workmen's Compensation at Ajmer who was not having any territorial jurisdiction to entertain the same.
3. He further submits that the relationship of employer and employee was not established on record because no such documentary evidence was placed on record to show that there ever existed any relationship of employee or employer between the injured and the respondent No. 1 as the respondent No. 1 has not appeared before the Commissioner despite service of notice.
4. Counsel further submits that the injured has sustained 30% permanent disability which has illegally been treated as 100% disability for calculating the loss in earning capacity.
5. Counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court delivered in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltds. v. Mohd. Nasir & Anr., reported in 2010 R.A.R. 33 (SC).
6. Counsel further submits that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner has committed serious illegality in allowing the claim petition filed by the claimant-respondent which is required to be quashed and set aside by this Court.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant-respondent opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company and submitted that as per Section 21 of the Act of 1923, the Commissioner was having territorial jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition filed by the claimant-respondent as at the time of accident and the filing of the claim petition, the injured was residing within the territorial jurisdiction of Beawar. He further submits that even the office of the appellant-Insurance Company is also situated.
8. He further submitted that their existed relationship of employer and employee between the injured and the respondent No. 1 and this fact is a finding of fact which cannot be re-appreciated by the High Court by exercising its jurisdiction contained under Section 30 of the Act of 1923.
9. He further submits that in the cases of Golla Rajanna and Ors. v. The Divisional Manager and Ors., reported in 2017 (1) SCC 45 & North-East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation and Ors. v. Smt. Sujata reported in (2019) 11 SCC 514, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the finding of fact is not required to be re-appreciated by the High Court by exercising its jurisdiction contained under Section 30 of the Act of 1923.
10. He further submits that no substantial question of law is involved in the present case and no illegality has been committed by the Commissioner while allowing the claim petition filed by the claimant-respondent.
11. Counsel for the claimant-respondent has also placed reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Malti Sardar v. national Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors., reported in 2016 (3) SCC 43.
12. Lastly, counsel for the claimant-respondent submitted that 30% permanent disability has caused 100% disability to the earning capacity of the injured.
13. Heard and considered the arguments of both sides.
14. It is not in dispute that the accident has occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of the Commissioner where the claim petition for compensation was submitted. It is also not in dispute that the office of the appellant-Insurance Company situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the Commissioner where the claim petition was
The court emphasized the limited jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 30 of the Act to substantial questions of law only, and the findings of fact made by the Commissioner.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between questions of fact and substantial questions of law in appeals under Section 30 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923. Th....
The appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act is limited to substantial questions of law, and findings of fact by the Commissioner are final unless shown to be perverse.
The appeal under Section 30 of the Workman Compensation Act is confined to substantial questions of law, and the findings of fact by the Commissioner are final unless shown to be perverse.
Appeal under Employee’s Compensation Act entertainable only on substantial questions of law; Commissioner’s disability findings final on facts; full award deposit including interest mandatory for mai....
The main legal point established is that the proviso to Section 21(1)(b) of the Employees’ Compensation Act imposes a mandatory notice requirement for a non-jurisdictional Compensation Commissioner t....
The findings of fact recorded by the Commissioner should not be interfered with unless they give rise to substantial questions of law.
The High Court's jurisdiction under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act is limited to substantial questions of law, and it cannot re-evaluate factual findings.
The insurance company is liable for compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act when an employee-employer relationship is established, regardless of the driver's licensing status or the nature ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
