Back
NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Antar Kanwar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Narendra Singh Dhaddha, J.
1. This appeal has been filed under section 30 of Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, 'the Act of 1923') against the judgment and award dt.5.10.2018 passed by Commissioner Workmen Compensation, Sikar in claim case No. W.C.C./F-93/2012 whereby an amount of Rs.7,30,480/- has been awarded in favour of the respondent-claimant (for short' the claimant') against non-claimant-respondent No. 1 and 2 alongwith interest 12% per annum from the date of alleged incident.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Commissioner wrongly awarded the compensation. He also submits that the Commissioner miserably failed to consider that no rojnamcha, PMR or any other public document was produced by the claimants to prove the involvement of the alleged vehicle in the accident. He also submits that claimants falsely implicated the alleged vehicle to get the amount of compensation. He further submits that there is no evidence to establish the relationship of the employer and employee between the deceased and the insured. He also submits that claimants failed to prove that deceased was engaged as a driver of the insured vehicle. He further submits that
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 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 High Court's jurisdiction under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act is limited to substantial questions of law, and it cannot re-appreciate evidence or disturb 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.
The appeal under the Workmen Compensation Act is confined to substantial questions of law, and factual findings by the Commissioner are generally conclusive.
The limited jurisdiction of the High Court to examine substantial questions of law only and not to reappreciate evidence or findings of fact.
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.
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
