NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
United India Insurance Company Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Kurda Ram son of Shri Gopal Ram – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
This Civil Misc. Appeal has been filed by the appellant- Insurance Company (for short ‘the Insurance Company’) u/s 30 of Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, the Act of 1923) against the judgment dated 23.01.2015 passed by learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Sikar in claim case No. WCC/F/54/2009 titled as Kurda Ram & Anr. Vs. Amar Singh Shekhawat & Ors., whereby an amount of Rs.4,39,900/- with interest @ 12% from the date of the accident has been awarded as compensation in favour of the claimants-respondents (for short ‘the claimants’) and against the Insurance Company and Rs.5,000/- has also been awarded as funeral expenses.
2. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that learned Commissioner wrongly allowed the claim petition filed by the claimants. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company also submits that there was no relationship of employee and employer between the deceased and owner of the vehicle. As per the version of the claimants, the deceased was employed with respondent No.4-Ram Niwas, who was neither the insured nor the registered owner of the vehicle. He further submits that deceased who was driving the vehicle at the relevant point
Golla Rajanna Etc. vs. The Divisional Manager and Anr. reported in 2017 (1) SCC 45
M/s Krishna Weaving Mills, Ajmer Vs. Smt. Chandra Bhaga Devi wide of Mool Chand & Anr."
North East Karnatka Transport Corporation Vs. Smt. Sujatha reported in 2019 (11) SCC 514.
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 main legal point established is the limited jurisdiction of the High Court to examine substantial questions of law under the Workmen's Compensation Act, emphasizing the finality of the Commission....
The limited jurisdiction of the High Court to examine substantial questions of law only and not to reappreciate evidence or findings of fact.
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 confined to substantial questions of law, prohibiting re-evaluation of factual findings.
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 judgment established the principle that the High Court's jurisdiction under the Workmen's Compensation Act is confined to examining substantial questions of law only.
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, preventing re-appreciation of evidence or disturbance of factual findings.
The High Court's review under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act is confined to substantial questions of law, not factual re-evaluations.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.