Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2613 (RAJ)

Ramwatti v. Dy. Chief Wild-life Conservator

2017-11-28

INDERJEET SINGH

body2017
JUDGMENT Inderjeet Singh, J. - The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 02.08.2006 passed by the Commissioner Workmen''s Compensation, Bharatpur in claim no. WC/19/2000 by which the claim application filed by the claimants was dismissed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants filed an application against the respondent stating therein that Ram Singh deceased was employed with the respondent on permanent basis as boatman cum Fire Watcher. He was 27 years of age at the time of incident. He died on on 13.12.1996 on account of an accident which occurred in the course and out of employment, the FIR was lodged about the accident. Lastly, the claimants prayed for awarding the compensation under the Workmen''s Compensation Act. 3. The respondent filed reply to the claim application and denied that the deceased was employed on permanent basis and stated that he was employed on work charge basis. It was admitted that the deceased died on 13.12.1996. It was denied that the deceased died in the course of and out of employment. It was stated that the FIR was lodged with regard to incident and on enquiry under Section 174 Cr.P.C., 1973 it was found that the deceased had taken liquor and while going to his house either while passing urine or on account of staggering he fell down in the Ramgarh Bandh and died. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of the claim application. 4. Counsel for the appellant has argued that there is no dispute about the employment of the deceased with the respondent-department and he died during the course of his employment, therefore, the Commissioner has wrongly decided issue no.2 against the claimants. Counsel further submits that the learned Commissioner has given a wrong finding on issue no.2 in while dismissing the claim application. 5. Counsel for the respondent has supported the judgment passed by the Commissioner. 6. Heard counsel for the parties and peruse the record. 7. Counsel further submits that the learned Commissioner has given a wrong finding on issue no.2 in while dismissing the claim application. 5. Counsel for the respondent has supported the judgment passed by the Commissioner. 6. Heard counsel for the parties and peruse the record. 7. The argument raised by the counsel for the appellant regarding wrongful deciding the issue no.2 by the Commissioner against the appellant-claimants is not acceptable in view of the fact that the Commissioner after considering the evidence on record has given a finding that the deceased after completion of officer hours taken liquor and at the time of death he was under the influence of liquor, therefore, the Commissioner has rightly held that the deceased not died during the course of his employment. Apart from this in support of claim application the claimant has not submitted any documentary evidence like postmortem report from where it could have been established that the deceased has not consumed the liquor on the date of accident. The Commissioner after considering the evidence of Vijaypal Singh who has specifically stated in his affidavit that the police after investigation in this case found that on the date of accident after the office hours the deceased has consumed the liquor and after taking liquor while going back to home, he fell down in the Ramgarh Bandh and on account of which he drowned. 8. In my considered view, the Commissioner has rightly given a finding on issue no.2 against the claimants and the Commissioner is the last authority on facts, in view of the judgment passed by 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. 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 halfmonthly 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) 09. 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. Under the scheme of the Act, the Workmen''s Compensation Commissioner is the last authority on facts. 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." 9. Thus, in view of the above discussion, the appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be dismissed for the reasons; firstly, no substantial questions of law is involved in this appeal; secondly, the Commissioner is the last authority on facts. 10. Since the appeal filed by the appellant has already been dismissed as such the cross objection filed by the respondent-claimant is also dismissed. 11. In that view of the matter, the appeal as well as cross objection stands dismissed.