Back
K. J. THAKER
New India Assurance Co Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Hardei – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant-New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
2. By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and award dated 31.3.2004 passed by Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Bareilly, in Case No.156/WCA/2002 awarding compensation of Rs.3,06,620/-.
3. Learned Counsel for the appellant – Insurance Company submits that according to the statement of the owner, deceased had taken the vehicle to the workshop for repairing and servicing but he had taken the vehicle in question to Delhi and Meerut with other five persons without his permission and as such his death would not be taken to be caused arising out of and in the course of his employment at the time of accident. The driver had licence to drive only motorcycle and LMV (Pvt.) whereas jeep was insured for taxi purposes and as such it was driven in violation of policy.
4. Learned Counsel for the claimant – respondent submits that the deceased Charan Singh Yadav was engaged as Driver with the vehicle no. UP-25-J/2228 owned by respondent no.2 and was murdered during course of his employment on 19.8.2002. The vehicle was insured with the company of appellant for which the learned Tribunal
The court established that claims can be made under both the Workmen's Compensation Act and the Motor Vehicles Act, and factual findings by the Commissioner are binding unless proven otherwise.
The findings of fact in a claim petition under the Workmen's Compensation Act are required to be proved with the aid of evidence, and once proved, the findings are regarded as findings of fact. The c....
Under the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923, the employer's negligence is not required to be proven for compensation claims, and the defenses available to insurers are limited in such cases.
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 court emphasized that the findings of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, based on sound appreciation of evidence, should not be disturbed unless a substantial question of law is involved.
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.
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
