JUDGMENT 1. (Oral) - The present Misc. Appeal has been filed under Section 30 of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 by the appellant National Insurance Company Limited against the judgment and award dated 21.07.2015 passed by the Court of learned Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, Udaipur allowing the claim petition [No. W.C. 04/2006 (J.L.C.)] to the extent of Rs. 1,61,790/- on account of death of Pratap Singh Rajput, who is said to have expired on 05.09.1997, in an accident arising out of the course of employment, being in the employment of respondent No. 1-Smt. Jyoti W/o late Jagdish Khatri. 2. 1,61,790/- on account of death of Pratap Singh Rajput, who is said to have expired on 05.09.1997, in an accident arising out of the course of employment, being in the employment of respondent No. 1-Smt. Jyoti W/o late Jagdish Khatri. 2. The relevant portion of the findings of the learned Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation Act in the impugned judgment dated 21.07.2015 regarding the claim to be reimbursed by the Insurance Company is quoted herein below for ready reference:- 3- D;k chek ikWfylh dh 'krksZa dk mYya?ku gqvk gS vkSj vizkFkhZ la[;k&2 ds {kfriwfrZ o C;kt vnk;xh ds mRrjnkf;Ro ij bldk D;k izHkko gksxk\ vizkFkhZ la[;k&2 ( chek dEiuh ) }kjk nq?kZVukxzLr okgu dh chek ikWfylh ( izn'kZ&, 1 ) dks fookfnr ugha fd;k gSA vizkFkhZ la[;k&2 ( chek dEiuh ) us vizkFkhZ la[;k&1 ds nq?kZVukxzLr okgu V~zd la[;k vkj0vkj0ts0 2735 dk oDr nq?kZVuk vius ;gka chfer gksuk Lohdkj fd;k gS rFkk blds leFkZu esa chek ikWfylh dh izfr is'k dh xbZ tks fd nq?kZVuk fnukad dks iw.kZr;k izHkkoh FkhA vizkFkhZ la[;k&2 ds xokg Jh gjh'k dqekj nso firk Jh vkj0,l0 nsok ls izkFkhZ i{k ds vf/koDrk }kjk dh xbZ ftjg esa mDr xokg us izn'kZ&, 1 chek ikWfylh ds vuqlkj 6 deZdkj dh fjLd doj fd;k tkuk Lohdkj fd;k gSA mDr foospu ds vk/kkj ij vizkFkhZ la[;k&2 chek ikWfylh dh fdlh Hkh 'krZ dk mYya?ku gksuk fl) ugha dj ik;s gSaA ,slh fLFkfr esa mDr foospu ds vk/kkj ij fook|d la[;k&3 vizkFkhZ la[;k&2 ds fo:) r; djrs gq, mls e`rd dh {kfriwfrZ o C;kt vnk;xh gsrq mRrjnk;h ekuk tkrk gSA pwafd izkFkhZx.k }kjk mDr Dyse izkFkZuk i= dks iwoZ esa ,e0,0lh0Vh0 U;k;ky;] mn;iqj esa is'k fd;k x;k Fkk tgka fopkjk/khu Fkk ysfdu izkFkhZx.k dks ,e0,0lh0Vh0 U;k;ky; }kjk bl U;k;ky; esa mDr Dyse izkFkZek i= izLrqr djus dh vuqefr ugha nh xbZ Fkh izkFkhZx.k }kjk mDr Dyse izkFkZuk i= dks LoSPNk ls foM~zk dj bl U;k;ky; esa izLrqr fd;k gS ftlls izkFkhZx.k C;kt dh jkf'k bl U;k;ky; esa Dyse izkFkZuk i= is'k djus dh fnukad 06-09-2006 ls izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gSA XXX vkns'k vr% vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd vizkFkhZx.k fu.kZ; fnukad ls 60 fnol esa {kfriwfrZ jkf'k :0 1]61]790@& ( v{kjs :i;s ,d yk[k bdlB gtkj lkr lkS uCcs ek= ) rFkk izkFkhZx.k }kjk Dyse izkFkZuk i= izLrqr djus dh fnukad 06-09-2006 ls leLr jkf'k :i;k 1]61]790@& ij tek djkus dh fnukad rd 12 ( ckjg ) izfr'kr dh nj ls lk/kkj.k okf"kZd C;kt Hkh izkFkhZx.k dks vnk djus gsrq bl U;k;ky; esa tek djoksA {kfriwfrZ o C;kt gsrq vizkFkhZx.k la;qDr o i`Fkd&i`Fkd :i ls mRrjnk;h gksaxsA lkFk gh vizkFkhZ la[;k&1 dks funsZf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd og mDr vof/k esa gh tqekZuk jkf'k :0 21]179@& ( v{kjs :i;k bDdhl gtkj ,d lkS mU;klh ) ek= bl U;k;ky; esa tek djkosaA jkf'k tek gksus ij U;k;'kqYd jkf'k :0 424@& ( v{kjs :i;s pkj lkS pkSchl ek= ) ds LVkEi i=koyh esa layXu fd;k tkos ,oa forj.k vkns'k i`Fkd ls tkjh fd, tkosaxsA vkns'k vkt fnukad 21-07-2015 dks esjs }kjk fy[kok;k ,oa gLrk{kfjr fd;k tkdj eksgj vnkyr ls tkjh dj [kqys U;k;ky; esa lquk;k x;kA Sd/- ( iratfr Hkw ) vk;qDr] deZdkj {kfriwfrZ vf/kfu;e 1923 ftyk mn;iqj ( jktLFkku )" 3. The learned counsel Mr. Sanjeev Johari appearing for the appellant-National Insurance Company Ltd. submitted that the claimants had taken a contra stand in the claim petition submitted before the learned Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation Act and the objections raised by the appellant Insurance Company were not dealt with by the learned Commissioner though the same were submitted as written arguments only but the same have not been touched in the impugned order. 4. From the extracted portion quoted above, on the contrary, it appears that the witness-Harish Kumar Dev, who appeared on behalf of the Insurance Company, admitted in his cross-examination, the liability of the insurance company with regard to the amount and the coverage of the employees under the insurance policy (Ex.A-1). No further evidence with regard to exoneration from the liability appears to have been led before the learned Commissioner. 5. Having heard the learned counsel Mr. Sanjeev Johari appearing for the appellant-National Insurance Company Ltd. and upon perusal of the material available on record, including the reasons assigned by the learned Commissioner in the impugned judgment dated 21.07.2015, this Court is of the opinion that if at all, the appellant-Insurance Company had raised some objections with regard to claim and its liability, as sought to be raised by the learned counsel Mr. Sanjeev Johari before this Court that the appellant-Insurance Company has also filed written arguments which have not been dealt with, the proper remedy for the appellant-Insurance Company was to file a review petition before the same Presiding Officer/Authority and seek a review so that the learned Commissioner below could meet these arguments at his own level. No such efforts appear to have been taken by the appellant-National Insurance Company Ltd. and, therefore, the appellant-Insurance Company cannot be allowed to raise the objections for the first time before this Court which were not raised before learned Commissioner. The appeal is thus found to be devoid of any merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. Accordingly and in view of the above, the present Misc. Appeal filed on behalf of the appellant-non-applicant-National Insurance Company Limited stands dismissed. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to the learned Court below and to the parties concerned forthwith.Appeal dismissed. *******