Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
NUPUR BHATI, J.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Divisional Manager, Udaipur through its Senior Divisional Manager – Appellant
Versus
Smt. Rajni, W/o. late Devendra and Ors. – Respondents
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1134 Of 2015
Decided On : 12-08-2024
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION - COMPENSATION CLAIM - Workman Compensation Act, 1923 - Sections 3, 22, 30 - The court discussed the scope of interference under Section 30 of the Workman Compensation Act, emphasizing that appeals must involve substantial questions of law. It highlighted that the Commissioner’s findings on the connection between the accident and employment were based on evidence, and the insurance company’s liability was affirmed despite the policy being issued for a different site. The court concluded that the appeal did not raise substantial questions of law and upheld the Commissioner’s award.
Fact of the Case:
The claimants filed a petition under the Workman Compensation Act for compensation following the death of Shri Devendra Singh, who died after falling from a construction site while working for M/s Kamal Engineering and Contractor Pvt. Ltd. The insurance company contested the claim, arguing that the accident did not occur during the course of employment and that the insurance policy did not cover the site of the accident.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Commissioner had correctly determined that the accident occurred during the course of employment and that there was a causal connection between the employment and the accident. The court upheld the Commissioner’s decision to impose liability on the insurance company and awarded compensation to the claimants.
Issues: 1. Whether the insurance company is liable despite the policy covering a different site. 2. Whether the accident occurred during the course of employment. 3. Whether there was a causal connection between the accident and employment. 4. Whether the Commissioner overlooked objections without framing issues. 5. Whether the insurance company is liable for interest on the compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that the appeal under Section 30 of the Workman Compensation Act is limited to substantial questions of law, and the findings of fact by the Commissioner are final unless proven perverse. The court emphasized that the questions raised by the insurance company were factual in nature and did not constitute substantial questions of law.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed as it did not involve any substantial question of law, and the findings of the Commissioner were upheld.
JUDGMENT :
(Nupur Bhati, J.) :
1. The appellant/non-claimant No.2 United India Insurance Company Ltd. has preferred the instant misc. appeal under Section 30 of the Workman Compensation Act, 1923 (‘Act pf 1923’) challenging the validity of judgment and award dated 05.12.2014 passed by learned Workman Compensation Commissioner, Udaipur in Claim Case No.04/2011, whereby the Commissioner has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.3,29,925/- in favour of claimants alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing claim petition i.e. 12.04.2011 and imposed penalty of Rs.98,977/- on the non-claimant No.1.
2. Before considering the appeal on merits, it is necessary to look into the scope of interference by the High Court in the appeal under Section 30 of the Act of 1923. It is no more res integra that such appeal to the High Court, against the order of the Commissioner, lie only against the specific orders set out in Clause (a) to (e) of Section 30 of the Act of 1923 with a further rider contained in Proviso-I of Section 30 that the appeal must involve substantial question(s) of law. The position of law is well settled that the appeal provided under Section 30 of the Act of 1923 to the High Court, against the order of Commissioner is not like a regular first appeal akin to the first appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The regular civil first appeal under Section 96 of CPC can be heard both on facts and law whereas the scope of appellate court to decide the appeal under Section 30 of the Act of 1923 is confined only to examine the substantial question(s) of law arising in the case. It is therefore, clear that the High Court is first required to find out as to whether the present appeal involves any substantial question(s) of law or not? If the substantial question(s) of law arises, the appeal may be admitted for final hearing on merits else the same is liable to be dismissed with reasons that it does not involve any substantial question(s) of law.
3. Now coming to the appeal at hand, the Insurance Company has suggested following questions of law for consideration by this Court:-
2. Whether accident has occurred during the course of employment and arising out of employment whereas according to the FIR after the duty hours deceased was coming to purchase the vegetable for the dinner? From the documents available on record it is clear that accident has not occurred during the course and under the employment?
3. Whether there was any casual connection between the accident and the employment?
4. Whether Employees Compensation Commissioner can pass award by overlooking the objection taken by the parties and without framing any issue on the objections?
5. Whether insurance company can be saddled with the interest on the compensation despite of the fact that there is no contract to this effect?
4. In order to examine as to whether the aforesaid questions are essentially questions of fact or can be considered as substantial question(s) of law, it is necessary to consider the facts of case in brief and the findings recorded by the Commissioner.
5. This is a case where claimants filed claim petition under Section 3 read with Section 22 of the Act of 1923 for compensation on account of death of the bread earner of their family namely, Shri Devendra Singh (deceased herein) who died on 04.07.2011 while working with his employer, non-claimant No.1/respondent No.5 herein. In the claim petition, the claimants alleged that that late Sh. Devendra Singh on 12.03.2011 while working in the employment of non-claimant No.1/respondent No.5, slipped from f
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.
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 findings of fact recorded by the Commissioner should not be interfered with unless they give rise to substantial questions of law.
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 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 ....
The establishment of an employer-employee relationship is essential for claiming compensation under the Employee’s Compensation Act, and the liability for interest on compensation lies with the emplo....
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 High Court's jurisdiction under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act is confined to substantial questions of law, and it cannot re-evaluate factual findings made by the Commissioner.
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
