Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
HDFC ERGO INSURANCE CO LTD – Appellant
Versus
SMT GYANLATA AND OTHERS – Respondent
CMA/1206/2012
An appeal against an award passed by the learned Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 is not maintainable if any substantial question of law is not involved in the case.
Headnote:
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION - RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EMPLOYEE AND EMPLOYER - ACCIDENT DURING THE COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT - INSURANCE COMPANY'S LIABILITY - SUMMARY
Fact of the Case:
The deceased, Parsa Ram, was employed as a driver-cum-Khalasi of a truck owned by non-claimant respondent No.4. The truck was insured with the appellant-Insurance Company. On 14.11.2010, Parsa Ram died during the course of his employment. The claimants, the deceased's wife and children, filed a claim petition against the Insurance Company and the owner of the vehicle under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.
Finding of the Court:
The learned Commissioner allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs.8,34,420/- with interest to the claimants. The Insurance Company appealed against the judgment and award, arguing that there was no relationship between the workman and employer and that the accident did not occur during the course of employment.
Issues: 1. Whether there was a relationship of employee and employer between the deceased and the owner of the vehicle?2. Whether the accident occurred during the course of employment?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the findings given by the learned Commissioner were based on sound appreciation of evidence and that no substantial question of law was involved in the appeal. The Court relied on the Supreme Court decisions in North East Karnatka Transport Corporation Vs. Sujatha and Golla Rajanna Etc. vs. The Divisional Manager And Anr., which held that an appeal against an award passed by the learned Commissioner is not maintainable if any substantial question of law is not involved in the case.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the Insurance Company's appeal and upheld the judgment and award of the learned Commissioner.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1206/2012
Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd., Office No. 2, Third
Floor, Sanghvi Upasana Tower, Shubhash Marg, C-Scheme,
Jaipur Having Its Regional Office At N-22, Second Floor, Sector-
18, Noida-201301 Through Its Constituted Attorney
----Appellant
Versus
1.
Smt. Gyanlata W/o Late Shri Parsaram @ Hajari, By Caste
Kumhar, R/o Pragpura, Distt. Jaipur
2.
Smt. Banarasi W/o Shri Hanuman, By Caste Kumhar, R/o
Pragpura, Distt. Jaipur
3.
Hanuman S/o Shri Panchuram, By Caste Kumhar, R/o
Pragpura, Distt. Jaipur
4.
M/s Best Roadways Ltd., R/o Shop No. 8, Sector No. 27,
Industrial Area, Faridabad Haryana Owner Of Vehicle No.
Hr-38-Q-8077
----Respondents
For Appellant(s)
:
Mr. Prakhar Agarwal, through VC
For Respondent(s)
:
Mr. Vinay Mathur, through VC
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Order
13/01/2022
A challenge in the instant misc. appeal has been made to the
impugned judgment and award dated 14.12.2011 passed by the
Court of learned Commissioner Workmen's Compensation, Jaipur
District-II, Jaipur (for short 'the learned Commissioner') in WCCF
No.369/2010 by which the claim petition filed by the claimants-
respondents has been allowed and the Insurance company has
been directed to pay compensation of Rs.8,34,420/- to the
claimants-respondents with interest.
(2 of 4)
[CMA-1206/2012]
The skeletal facts of this case are that the claimants-
respondents (hereinafter referred to as 'the claimaints') submitted
a claim petition against the Insurance Company as welll as non-
claimant (respondent No.4) under the provisions of Workmen's
Compensation Act, 1923 (for short 'the Act of 1923') on account of
loss suffered by them due to death of Parsa Ram, who died on
14.11.2010 during the course of employement of non-claimant
respondent No.4. It was stated in the claim petition that the
deceased was discharging his duties as driver-cum-Khalasi of
Truck No.HR-38Q-8077 and the said truck was insured with the
appellant-Insurance Company. It was also stated in the claim
petition that since the death has occurred during the course of
employement, hence, the Insurance Company as well as the
owner of the vehilce are liable to pay compensation to the
claimants.
It was also pleaded that the age of the deceased was 28
years at the time of accident and he was getting salary of
Rs.9000/- per month.
The owner of the vehicle submitted its reply and admitted
the averments made in the claim petition while the appellant-
Insurance Company denied the averments made in the claim
petition and stated that no notice under Section 10 of the Act of
1923 was served and there is no evidence to establiseh the
relationship of employee and employer on the record. Hence, the
Insurance Company prayed for rejection of the claim petiton.
By judgment and award dated 14.12.2011 the learned
Commissioner allowed the claim petition and awarded
compensation of Rs.8,34,420/- with interest to the claimants.
(3 of 4)
[CMA-1206/2012]
Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and award, the Insurance
Company has submitted instant appeal under Section 30 of the
Act of 1923 mainly on the ground that there was no relationship
existed between the workman and employer and the findings of
the learned Commissioner are erroneous with regard to the issue
that the accident occurred during the course of the employment.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the
documents available on record.
In the considered opinion of this Court, it is the settled
position of law that the question as to whether the employee met
with an accident, whether the accident occurred during the course
of the employemen, whether there existed any relationship
between employee and employer, are some of the material issues
which arise for just decision of the learned Com
