NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited – Appellant
Versus
Sanwarmal S/o Rameshwardayal – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. 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 26.09.2017 passed by learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Sikar (for short ‘the Commissioner’) in claim case No. W.C.C./N.F./13/2014 titled as “Sanwarmal Vs. Mukesh and Anr., whereby learned Commissioner has awarded a sum of Rs.4,96,591/-with interest @ 12% P.A. from the date of accident in favour of the claimant-respondent No.1 (for short ‘the claimant’). IN addition to the above, a sum of Rs.52,330/-has also been awarded under the head of medical expenses.
2. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that in the insurance policy risk of the helper was not covered as no premium was charged by the insurance company in this regard. He further submits that the FIR was lodged after three months, for which no reasonable explanation was given. The income of the injured has also been assessed at higher side. Hence, the appeal be allowed and judgment dated 26.09.2017 passed by learned Commissioner be set aside.
3. At the outset, learned counsel for the claima
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.
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 limited jurisdiction of the High Court to examine substantial questions of law only and not to reappreciate evidence or findings of fact.
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 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 appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act is confined to substantial questions of law, prohibiting re-evaluation of factual findings.
The appeal under the Workmen Compensation Act is confined to substantial questions of law, and factual findings by the Commissioner are generally conclusive.
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.
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, and it cannot re-evaluate factual findings.
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....
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.