HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3412/2017 The New India Assurance Company Limited, Nehru Place, Tonk Road, Jaipur ----Appellant Versus

1. Tija Devi W/o Late Jagdish, aged 36 years, 2. Mahendra Kumar S/o Late Jagdish, aged 20 years, 3. Rajpal S/o Late Jagdish, aged 18 years, 4. Chhamli Devi W/o Late Bhaggu @ Bhagirathmal, aged

65 years (since deceased).

All resident of Pragpura, Police Station Pragpura, Teh.

Kotputali, Distt. Jaipur. Claimants-respondents

5. Surajmal Yadav S/o Sardarmal, 6. Smt. Kamli Devi W/o Shri Sardarmal, Both are resident of Bad Nagar Dhani Chaani Ki, Teh.

Kotputali, Distt. Jaipur.

Regd. Owner Of Vehicle Tractor No.RJ-32-RA-1038 ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ram Singh Rathore For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gaurav Gupta JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Order

22/01/2026

1. By way of filing the instant appeal under Section 30 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, ‘the Act of 1923’), a challenge has been led to the impugned award dated 15.05.2017 passed by the Employees Compensation Commissioner, Jaipur-II, Jaipur in Claim Case No.121/2009, by which the claim petition submitted by the claimants-

respondents (for short, ‘the claimants’) has been allowed and the appellant-insurance (for short, ‘the appellant’) company has been directed to pay compensation of Rs.4,20,960/- to the claimants along with interest @12% per annum.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that a delayed claim petition was submitted by the claimants before the Employee’s Compensation Commissioner (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Commissioner’) after four years of the alleged incident. Counsel submits that the limitation for filing the claim petition is two years, but even then, a time barred claim petition was submitted and the same was entertained by the Commissioner. Counsel further submits that the deceased has not died because of the injuries sustained in the accident, rather he died a natural death. This fact has not been appreciated by the Commissioner and the claim petition submitted by the claimants has been erroneously allowed. Hence, the impugned award passed by the Commissioner is not sustainable and is liable to be quashed and set-aside.

3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants opposes the arguments raised by the counsel for the appellant and submits that the deceased Jagdish was working under the employment of the respondents No.5 and 6. While driving a vehicle i.e. Tractor bearing No.RJ32-RA-1038 to Sikar Kanwat, carrying bags of wheat, the deceased Jagdish met with an accident, wherein he sustained injuries and died. Counsel submits that the deceased has died under the employment of the respondents No.5 and 6. Since the vehicle in question was insured with the appellant-insurance company, the Commissioner has not committed any error while allowing the claim petition submitted by the claimants and directing the appellant and the respondent Nos.5 and 6 to pay compensation of Rs.4,20,960/- to the claimants with interest @12% per annum from the date of accident. He further submits that no substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal and this appeal itself is not maintainable in terms of Section 30 of the Act of 1923, as no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. Hence, on this count alone, the appeal is liable to be rejected.

4. In support of his contentions, counsel for the claimants has placed reliance upon the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Golla Rajanna Etc. Etc. vs. The Divisional Manager and Another, Etc. Etc. while deciding Civil Appeal No.11114-11119/2016 vide order dated 23.11.2026 and North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation vs. Sujatha reported in 2019 (11) SCC 514.

5. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record.

6. The only question which has been raised in the memo of appeal about death