The appeal under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act is limited to substantial questions of law, and findings of fact by the Commissioner are not to be interfered with.

JUDGEMENT :

PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR, J.

1. The appellant Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd has preferred the present appeal under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) assailing the award dated 22.5.2017 passed by Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Jaipur District-II, Jaipur in Claim Case No. ECCF 39/2010 whereby death compensation was awarded to respondent No.1, directing the appellant Insurance Company to pay Rs. 4,19,840/- along with interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 11.9.2009 till realisation.

2. Brief facts, as apparent from the record, are that claimant/respondent Smt. Mohari Devi filed a claim petition under “the Act” claiming compensation on account of death of his son Sharwanlal. As per the averments deceased Sharwanlal was working as a Driver of Vehicle No. RJ-14-GB-8298 in the employment of non-claimant/respondent Ram Karan Yadav. On 11.8.2009, the said vehicle was carrying goods from Udaipur to Neemrana. At Pooja Hotel near Chandwaji, above truck collided with another truck from behind and Sharwanlal sustained injuries and succumbed to the same. The death occurred during the course of employment. The above truck was insured with the appellant Insurance Company.

3. Heard the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the deceased Sharwanlal was not employed with the non-claimant respondent Ramkaran. Admittedly, the deceased and owner of the truck were real brothers and in no manner, deceased was under the employment of his real brother. It can be said that Shrawnlal was non paid driver which would not fall within the category of paid driver. The learned Commissioner has not applied its judicial mind as there was no question of relationship of employer and employee and death was not occurred during and arising out of course of employment, therefore, the award passed by the learned Commissioner is liable to be set aside.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for claimant respondent refuted the submissions made on behalf of the appellant by contending that the employer-employee relationship between the deceased was duly proved and mere close relationship with the employer and employee does not disentitle the employee from claiming compensation under “the Act”. He further submits that the present appeal is not maintainable as per provisions of Section 30 of the Act unless a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. Hence, on factual aspect, the appeal is not maintainable.

6. I have given my earnest consideration to the rival contentions of the parties and scanned the matter carefully.

7. At the outset, it is pertinent to observe that in terms of Section 30 of the Act a challenge to the order of Commissioner can be made only on substantial question of law. In this regard, the Supreme Court in North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation v. Sujatha reported as (2019) 11 SCC 514 has held the scope of an appeal under Section 30 of the Act to be limited to substantial questions of law, and that findings of facts proved either way are not to be likely interfered with. Relevant excerpt from the decision is reproduced hereunder:-

"9. At the outset, we may take note of the fact, being a settled principle, that the question as to whether the employee met with an accident, whether the accident occurred during the course of employment, whether it arose out of an employment, how and in what manner the accident occurred, who was negligent in causing the accident, whether there existed any relationship of employee and employer, what was the age and monthly salary of the employee, how many are the dependents of the deceased employee, the extent of disability caused to the employee due to injuries suffered in an accident, whether there was any insurance coverage obtained by the employer to cover the incident etc. are some of the material issues which arise for the just decision of the Commiss