Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Anoop Kumar Dhand, J.
Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Limited – Appellant
Versus
Atma Singh – Respondent
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 354 of 2013
Decided On : 18-01-2022
Workmen's Compensation - Appeal against Judgment and Award - Employer-Employee Relationship - The court upheld the decision of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, stating that the findings were based on sound appreciation of the evidence and no substantial question of law was involved. Cited legal provisions from the Workmen's Compensation Act and Supreme Court cases to support the decision.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, an Insurance Company, appealed against the judgment and award of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, which granted compensation to the claimant-respondent. The appellant argued that there was no employer-employee relationship between the claimant-respondent and the owner of the vehicle.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the findings of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner were based on sound appreciation of the evidence and no substantial question of law was involved in the appeal. Cited legal provisions and Supreme Court cases to support the decision.
Issues: The main issue was the existence of an employer-employee relationship between the claimant-respondent and the owner of the vehicle.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the findings of the Commissioner were not liable to be disturbed as no substantial question of law was involved. Cited legal provisions and Supreme Court cases to support the decision.
Final Decision: The appeal filed by the appellant-Insurance Company was dismissed, as no substantial question of law was involved. No order as to cost. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
JUDGMENT
1. Instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant- Insurance company against the judgment and award dated 27.12.2012 passed by the Court of Workmen's Compensation Commissioner (hereinafter referred to as 'learned Commissioner'), Jaipur, District-I, Jaipur in claim case No. WCC/NF/123/2012 by which the claim petition filed by the claimant-respondent has been allowed and compensation of Rs.1,18,236/- with interest has been granted to the claimant-respondent.
2. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award dated 27.12.2012, the appellant-Insurance Company has submitted this appeal only on the ground that the deceased was not working under the employment of the non-claimant- respondent No.2 and there was no instance of relationship of employee and employer between the claimant-respondent and the owner of the vehicle.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company further submitted that perverse findings have been recorded by the learned Commissioner while deciding this issue.
4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company and perused the documents available on record.
5. In the considered opinion of this Court, the findings given by the learned Commissioner are based on sound appreciation of the evidence and the same is not liable to be disturbed as no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of North-East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation and Ors. Vs. Smt. Sujata reported in (2019) 11 SCC 514 has held that the appeal filed against the award passed by the Workmenen's Compensation Commissioner is not maintainable if any substantial question of law is not involved in the same. Likewise, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Golla Rajanna and Ors. Vs. The Divisional Manager and Ors., reported in 2017 (1) SCC 45 has held that under the scheme of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, learned Commissioner is the last authority on facts and the High Court has very limited jurisdiction and it has no jurisdiction to re-appreciate the evidence recorded on its findings of facts.
6. Thus, in view of the above discussions, no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal hence this appeal filed by the appellant-Insurance Company is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.
7. No order as to cost.
8. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
The court emphasized that the findings of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, based on sound appreciation of evidence, should not be disturbed unless a substantial question of law is involved.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of appeal to substantial questions of law under Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923.
The appellate jurisdiction of the High Court is confined only to examine the substantial questions of law arising in the case, as provided under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.
The appellate jurisdiction of the High Court is confined only to examine substantial questions of law, and cannot reappreciate the evidence and finding of fact recorded on the evidence led by both th....
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.
Limited jurisdiction of the High Court in appeals under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.
Limited jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act to examine substantial questions of law only.
The High Court's jurisdiction under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act is limited to substantial questions of law; it cannot re-evaluate evidence or disturb findings unless they are pervers....
The court established that claims can be made under both the Workmen's Compensation Act and the Motor Vehicles Act, and factual findings by the Commissioner are binding unless proven otherwise.
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
