Point of Law : None of factual findings are found to be either perverse or arbitrary or based on no evidence or against any provision of law.

JUDGMENT :

Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. None present for the respondents.

2. This is one more classic case where insurance company has challenged meagre amount granted to heir of deceased employee a truck driver for accident which occurred on 13.04.1990. Accident having taken place and causing death of employee and compensation awarded is not in dispute.

3. The appellant has challenged the order dated 07.10.1992 of the Workmans Compensation Commissioner, Etwah under Workman Compensation Act, 1923 (referred as ‘Act’) whereby compensation of Rs.69,984.60/-has been awarded to claimant/respondent for death of her husband who was a driver and employed by respondent no. 7 and 8 herein passed away due to employment injuries.

4. The Insurance Co. has contended that the deceased was not in employment of the appellant and therefore the appellant company could not have been made liable for payment of penalty, as the provisions of Act does not saddle them with liability. It is further submitted that no issue were framed by the Commissioner before deciding the matter and the owner did not raise any demand

5. The submission of learned counsel for Insurance Company that no issues were framed is not accepted as about 6 issues have been framed and have been decided in seriation by Commissioner, the first submission of the appellant fails. As far as it relates to payment of penalty is concerned, judgment of the Apex Court titled as Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Siby George and others, 2012 (4) T.A.C. 4 (S.C.) will not permit this Court to take a different view then that taken by the Commissioner. There need not be any demand, however, the owner in reply before the Commissioner has taken stand that they had immediately intimated the insurance company about accidental death of its employee thus this aspect falls in realm of disputed question of fact and not law, the matter has been prolonged by the Insurance Company a similar situation has been lamented by the apex Court recently in Golla Rajanna Etc. Etc. Vs. Divisional Manager and Another, 2017 (1) TAC 259 (SC). The finding of fact is that the deceased was an employee who had sustained employment injury and died.

6. I am supported in my view by the decision of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.7470 of 2009 North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs. Smt. Sujatha decided on 2.11.2018 wherein it has been held that the Court has held as under:

“15. Such appeal is then heard on the question of admission with a view to find out as to whether it involves any substantial question of law or not. Whether the appeal involves a substantial question of law or not depends upon the facts of each case and needs an examination by the High Court. If the substantial question of law arises, the High Court would admit the appeal for final hearing on merit else would dismiss in limini with reasons that it does not involve any substantial question/s of law.

16. Now coming to the facts of this case, we find that the appeal before the High Court did not involve any substantial question of law on the material questions set out above. In other words, in our view, the Commissioner decided all the material questions arising in the case properly on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties and rightly determined the compensation payable to the respondent. It was, therefore, rightly affirmed by the High Court on facts.

17. In this view of the matter, the findings being concurrent findings of fact of the two courts below are binding on this Court. Even otherwise, we find no good ground to call for any interference on any of the factual findings. None of the factual findings are found to be either perverse or arbitrary or based on no evidence or against any provision of law. We accordingly uphold these findings.”

7. This Court, recently in F.A.F.O. 1070 of 1993 (E.S.I.C. Vs. S. Prasad) decided on 26.10.2017 has followed the decision in Golla Rajana (Supra) and has held as