[2025:RJ-JP:16906]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 5340/2009 Manager, Baid Finance Company, 3, Jaipur Towers, M.i. Road, Jaipur, Financer Company For Vehicle Jeep Taxi No. Rj 14-T-

6749.

----Appellant Versus

1. Bhagwana Ram S/o Shri Chimna Ram, Resident Of Village Parasrampura, Tehsil Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan).

2. Smt. Ramkori, W/o Bhagwana Ram, Resident Of Village Parasrampura, Tehsil Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu(Rajasthan).

3. Meetha Lal Meena S/o Kana Ram Meena, Resident Of 25, Jain Vatika Colony, Behind Chokhi Dhani, Tonk Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan),(Registered Owner Jeep Taxi No. Rj 14-

T 6749).

4. Raghuvir S/o Ram Kumar, Resident Of Village Parasrampura, Tehsil Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan).

----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. M.F. Baig For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ripu Daman Singh Naruka with Mr. Ashir Gauri HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

Order

18/02/2025

1. Instant S.B. Civil Misc. appeal is preferred by appellant-non- claimant aggrieved from award dated 07.09.2009 in case no. WCC/F/48/2007 passed by the Commissioner Workman Compensation Act, Sikar whereby on application of respondent nos. 1 and 2 the Commissioner has awarded the compensation on death of son of claimants and directed present appellant to make payment.

2. Learned counsel for appellant non-claimant submitted that respondent nos. 1 and 2 have filed a claim petition on false ground but instead of dismissing the claim petition against the present appellant the Commissioner has allowed the same and passed an award against the appellant which is contrary to material available on record. He also referred the record and submitted that the facts in the case clearly indicate that deceased Nemi Chand who was son of claimants was working as a driver of Jeep No. RJ14 T6749 and this jeep was owned by non-claimant no.3 Raghuveer. He further referred the registration certificate Ex. A/3 and submitted that when a vehicle is owned by non-claimant no.3, and operating in his control then present appellant cannot be held liable to make payment on death of driver of said vehicle. He further submitted that there is not a single document to connect present appellant with taxi no. RJ14 T6749. He further submitted that the vehicle in question was never used by appellant for recovery and deceased was never employed by appellant. At last, he submitted that the Commissioner, Workman Compensation Act has gone beyond the valid ground under the Act. He also referred the judgment in case of Dr. B. Radhakrishna Vs. Gouramma 1994(ii) LLJ 584 and submitted that when a specific issue is not framed by the Commissioner, the only option is to remit the matter after setting aside the award.

3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel for respondent(s). Learned counsel for respondent(s) placed reliance upon judgment in case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

Vs. Dwarika Bai and Ors. S.B. CMA no. 96/2013, order dated 25.07.2023) passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and submitted that there is no ground to discharge appellant from liability of payment under the award. He further referred the hire- purchase agreement between non-claimant no.3 Raghuveer and present appellant and submitted that on non-payment of instalments by non-claimant no,3. said vehicle was procured by appellant and since then this vehicle is used for recovery of dues by present appellant. He further submits that the deceased was working under the control of manager of appellant. He further referred the judgment in case of Golla Rajanna etc. Vs. Divisional Manager and Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 11114- 11119/2016 and submitted that this Hon’ble this Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence on record on findings of facts. He further submitted there a limited scope of interference in civil misc. appeal under Section 30 of Workman Compensation Act.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. The instant appeal is prefer