Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Anoop Kumar Dhand, J.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Jagdish Saini Son Of Arjun Lal & Ors. – Respondent
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2104/2010
Decided On : 20-05-2022
Insurance Company - Workmen's Compensation - Motor Vehicles Act - [Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923] - [Section 30] - The court discussed the issue of whether a thresher attached to a tractor in an agricultural field for sifting grain from chaff can be determined as a motor vehicle or vehicle or integral part of the tractor. The court referred to the Division Bench's decision and subsequent co-ordinate Bench decisions, as well as the requirement of lodging an FIR and the upper limit of the insurance policy amount. The court held that the findings given by the Commissioner were based on a sound appreciation of evidence and not liable to be disturbed. The court emphasized the limited jurisdiction of the High Court to substantial questions of law only and dismissed the appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, an Insurance Company, filed an appeal against a judgment allowing a claim petition for compensation due to an accident involving a thresher and a tractor. The appellant argued that the accident did not involve the tractor, no FIR was lodged, and the compensation amount exceeded the policy limit. The respondent opposed these arguments, citing previous court decisions and the lack of substantial questions of law in the appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Commissioner's findings were based on a sound appreciation of evidence and not liable to be disturbed. It emphasized the limited jurisdiction of the High Court to substantial questions of law only and dismissed the appeal.
Issues: The issues involved the determination of whether the thresher attached to the tractor constituted a motor vehicle, the necessity of lodging an FIR, and the upper limit of the insurance policy amount.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the limited jurisdiction of the High Court to substantial questions of law only and upheld the Commissioner's findings based on a sound appreciation of evidence.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, stating that no interference was called for and upheld the Commissioner's findings.
JUDGMENT
1. Instant appeal has been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company against the judgment dated 30.06.2010 passed by the Court of Commissioner, Workmens Compensation, Jaipur District II (for short ’the Commissioner’) in case No.WCCNF-71/2008 by which the claim petition filed by the claimant-respondent has been allowed and the appellant-Insurance Company was directed to pay compensation of Rs.2,65,204/- with interest.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submits that the accident occurred by thresher which is not a part of Tractor.
3. He further submits that after the accident, no FIR was lodged. Hence, it cannot be believed that there was any negligence on the part of respondent No.2.
4. He also submits that as per the Insurance Policy, the maximum amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- could have been awarded, but the Tribunal erred in awarding compensation of Rs. 2,65,204/-.
5. Counsel further submits that the claimant-respondent was the owner of the field where the incident occurred, hence the Commissioner has erred in allowing the claim petition filed by the claimant-respondent.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimant-respondent opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the appellantInsurance Company and submits that the Division Bench of this Court has answered a reference in the case of Gopali Kushwaha Vs. Bhanwar Singh and Anr., reported in 2017(1) DNJ (Raj.) 88 in which the issue before the Division Bench was that "whether thresher attached to the Tractor in an agricultural field for sifting the grain from the chaff can be determined as a motor vehicle or vehicle or integral part of the Tractor?" The aforesaid reference was answered by the Division Bench and it was held that if the thresher is attached with the Tractor, only then it is motor vehicle not otherwise subject to fulfilling such requisite conditions of the Motor Vehicles Act.
7. Counsel further submitted that after the aforesaid answered by the Division Bench, two co-ordinate Benches of this Court dealt the same issue in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Hanuman Singh & Anr. (S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.5500/2009) and decided the same against the Insurance Company.
8. Counsel also submits that lodging of FIR is not necessary in such type of matters and this fact has been appreciated by this Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Roop Raj & Anr. (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.5311/2008) decided on 13.01.2009.
9. Lastly, counsel for the claimant-respondent submitted that so far as the question raised by the Insurance Company that the upper limit of the amount of the policy was Rs. 2,00,000/- only is not sustainable for reasons that no such substantial question of law has been formulated by the appellant-Insurance Company in the memo of appeal. Hence, he argued that there is no substance in the appeal and arguments raised by the appellant-Insurance Company are finding of fact which cannot be re-appreciated by this Court by exercising its jurisdiction contained under Section 30 of the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923.
10. Heard counsel for the parties, considered the arguments and perused the record.
11. It is not in dispute that the Division Bench of this Court by formulating the question in the case of Gopali Kushwaha (supra) has decided the issue raised by the appellant-Insurance Company that whether the thresher attached to the Tractor is not a vehicle and the same was not insured and it was answered in Para No.11 as under:-
"In that view of the matter and taking into consideration the over all view taken by all other Courts, we are of the opinion that the if the Thrasher is attached with the tractor, then it will include as a vehicle. In that view of the matter, we answer the question accordingly. However, we make it clear that if the Thrasher is attached with the tractor, only then it is a motor vehicle and not otherwise, subject to fulfilling other requisite conditions of the Motor Vehicles Act"
The limited jurisdiction of the High Court to substantial questions of law only and the requirement for findings to be based on a sound appreciation of evidence.
The judgment emphasizes the limited jurisdiction of the High Court to substantial questions of law only and upholds the findings of the learned Commissioner based on sound appreciation of evidence.
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 limited jurisdiction of the High Court to examine substantial questions of law only under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.
Limited jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, allows appeals only on 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, preventing re-appreciation of evidence or disturbance of factual findings.
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.
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 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.
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
