Back
K. J. THAKER
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Yamini – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts surrounding the accident and employment status. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. court's reasoning on evidence and findings. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. scope of high court in appeals against factual findings. (Para 8 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. principles regarding factual findings and non-interference. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. final decision and directions for compensation disbursement. (Para 15 , 16) |
JUDGMENT
Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J.
By way of this appeal, Oriental Insurance Company has challenged the judgment and order dated 21.4.1997 passed by Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Sahjahanpur in Case No.WCA 6 of 1996 awarding compensation of Rs.1,60,559/-with interest at the rate of 12% in favour of claimants-respondent.
2. The deceased was an employee on the vehicle insured with appellant-insurance company and, therefore, the insurance company was not liable to make payment. Hence, the insurance company sadled with the liability. The deceased according to the claimants was a cleaner with respondent no.1 being the owner of the Jeep Number UP-27/5269 which was insured with the appellant.
3. On 22.1.1995 at about 9:30 a.m. the vehicle met with an accident and the truck dashed the jeep fr
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 High Court's jurisdiction in appeals under the Workmen Compensation Act is limited to substantial questions of law, and it cannot re-evaluate 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.
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 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.
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.
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
