Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2222 (RAJ)

Prakash Chand Meena v. Sangram Singh

2017-10-23

INDERJEET SINGH

body2017
JUDGMENT Inderjeet Singh, J. - The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 18.04.2007 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen''s Compensation, Jaipur District, Jaipur in case No. W.C.C.F. 25/2005. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant-claimant has filed a claim petition before the Commissioner Workmen''s Compensation stating therein that he was under the employment of respondent no. 2 as cleaner for the Vehicle Truck No. RJA-2323 and this vehicle insured with the respondent no. 3. At the time of accident, the appellant was 21 years of age and he was drawing salary of Rs. 4,000/- per month as well as Rs. 1,000/-as allowance. On 16.05.1993, the aforesaid truck collided with the Truck No. RPA-9495, and the cleaner sustained injuries due to the said accident. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to receive the compensation under the provisions of Workmen''s Compensation Act. 3. The respondent-Insurance Company filed reply to the said application and taken the objections regarding violation of the policy conditions. It was also stated in the reply that driver of the alleged vehicle was not having valid and effective licence. 4. Counsel for the appellant argued that the Commissioner has wrongly decided issue no. 2 to 4 while calculating the compensation. Counsel for the appellants submits that he has proved his salary as Rs. 4,000/- per month, whereas, the Commissioner has wrongly taken into consideration the salary of rupees/wages of rupees one thousand. Counsel further submits that he has received 65% permanent disability and the Commissioner while arising the loss of earning capacity has wrongly assessed as 70%, whereas the same suit has been 100%. 5. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent argued that the Commissioner has rightly decided issue no. 2 to 4 and Commissioner is last authority on facts, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 6. Heard counsel for the parties. 7. In the present matter the accident took place on 16.05.1993 and the appellant has filed a claim application in the year 2005. The Contention of the appellant that the Commissioner has wrongly assessed the compensation taking into consideration the salary as Rs. 1,000/- is not acceptable because the accident took place in the year 1993 and in my opinion the Commissioner has rightly decided the compensation taking into consideration, the monthly wages of the appellant as Rs. The Contention of the appellant that the Commissioner has wrongly assessed the compensation taking into consideration the salary as Rs. 1,000/- is not acceptable because the accident took place in the year 1993 and in my opinion the Commissioner has rightly decided the compensation taking into consideration, the monthly wages of the appellant as Rs. 1,000/- per month as per the provisions of Section 4 to Explanation 2nd of Workmen''s Compensation Act, 1923, prevailing on the date of accident i.e. 16.05.1993. The second contention of the counsel for the appellant regarding loss of earning capacity wrongly considered by the Commissioner as 70% is also not acceptable because the Commissioner after considering the evidence and record of the case has given finding to this effect and in my opinion the Commissioner is the last authority on facts. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in the matter of Golla Rajanna and Ors. vs. The Divisional Manager and Ors., reported in 2017 (1) SCC 45 in which para 8, 09 & 10 has held as under:- "8. Section 30 of the Act provides for appeals to the High Court. To the extent, the provision reads as follows: 30. Appeals. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in the matter of Golla Rajanna and Ors. vs. The Divisional Manager and Ors., reported in 2017 (1) SCC 45 in which para 8, 09 & 10 has held as under:- "8. Section 30 of the Act provides for appeals to the High Court. To the extent, the provision reads as follows: 30. Appeals. - (1) An appeal shall lie to the High Court from the following orders of a Commissioner, namely: (a) an order awarding as compensation a lump sum whether by way of redemption of a half-monthly payment or otherwise or disallowing a claim in full or in part for a lump sum; [(aa) an order awarding interest or penalty Under Section 4A;] (b) an order refusing to allow redemption of a half monthly payment; (c) an order providing for the distribution of compensation among the dependants of a deceased workman, or disallowing any claim of a person alleging himself to be such dependant; (d) an order allowing or disallowing any claim for the amount of an indemnity under the provisions of Subsection (2) of Section 12; or (e) an order refusing to register a memorandum of agreement or registering the same or providing for the registration of the same subject to conditions: Provided that no appeal shall lie against any order unless a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal and, in the case of an order other than an order such as is referred to in Clause (b), unless the amount in dispute in the appeal is not less than three hundred rupees: (Emphasis supplied) 9. The Workmen''s Compensation Commissioner, having regard to the evidence, had returned a finding on the nature of injury and the percentage of disability. It is purely a question of fact. There is no case for the insurance company that the finding is based on no evidence at all or that it is perverse. Under Section 4(1)(c) (ii) of the Act, the percentage of permanent disability needs to be assessed only by a qualified medical practitioner. There is no case for the Respondents that the doctor who issued the disability certificate is not a qualified medical practitioner, as defined under the Act. Thus, the Workmen''s Compensation Commissioner has passed the order based on the certificate of disability issued by the doctor and which has been duly proved before the Workmen''s Compensation Commissioner. 10. There is no case for the Respondents that the doctor who issued the disability certificate is not a qualified medical practitioner, as defined under the Act. Thus, the Workmen''s Compensation Commissioner has passed the order based on the certificate of disability issued by the doctor and which has been duly proved before the Workmen''s Compensation Commissioner. 10. Under the scheme of the Act, the Workmen''s Compensation Commissioner is the last authority on facts. The Parliament has thought it fit to restrict the scope of the appeal only to substantial questions of law, being a welfare legislation. Unfortunately, the High Court has missed this crucial question of limited jurisdiction and has ventured to re-appreciate the evidence and recorded its own findings on percentage of disability for which also there is no basis. The whole exercise made by the High Court is not within the competence of the High Court Under Section 30 of the Act. 8. Thus, in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be dismissed for the reasons; firstly, no substantial question of law is made out in this appeal; secondly, the Commissioner is the last authority on facts; thirdly, the accident took place in the year 1993 and the appellant has filed the claim application in the year 2005. Therefore, the Commissioner has rightly decided the claim application according to the provisions of law applicable in the year 1993. 9. In that view of the matter, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed.