Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 594 (RAJ)

Vijay Singh Meena S/o Shri Chandaram Meena v. Mohan Lal S/o Shri Laxminarayan Meena

2018-02-20

INDERJEET SINGH

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 09.11.2009 passed by Commissioner Workman Compensation, Jaipur-I, Jaipur in Case No.W.C.C.F/39/2008. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 16.05.2008, the appellant-claimants filed a claim petition before the Commissioner Workmen Compensation, Jaipur claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.4,43,385/- on account of loss suffered by them due to death of Smt. Kaushallya Devi caused due to injuries sustained in the accident took place on 30.10.2007 which occurred during the course of employment when she was working as workman on Tractor No.RJ14-RA-1178 owned by respondent No.2. It was also pleaded that at the time of accident she was 35 years old and getting Rs.4500/- per month salary. Smt. Kaushallya Devi died during treatment. Lastly prayed for awarding the compensation. The owner of the vehicle respondent No.2 i.e. employer filed reply to the claim application in which the employment of deceased was admitted. The respondent No.3 i.e. insurance company filed reply to the claim application and denied the averments. 3. None present on behalf of the respondent despite service. 4. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the finding given by the Learned Commissioner on Issue Nos.1 and 2 is perverse as the employer has admitted the fact that the deceased was working on his tractor and she died during the course of her employment. 5. Heard counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 6. The argument raised by counsel for the appellant regarding the perverse finding given by the Learned Commissioner on Issue Nos.1 and 2 has no force in view of the fact that the Learned Commissioner after considering the evidence available on record and also considering the statements recorded by the police during investigation has comes to a finding that the deceased Smt. Kaushallya Devi was not under the employment of respondent No.2 i.e. Kailash Meena. In my considered opinion, the finding given by the learned Commissioner is based on sound appreciation of evidence and the same is not liable to be disturbed by this court as no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. I have also perused the document Exhibit 6 i.e. cover note issused by the insurance company according to which the premium of only driver was taken by the insurance company with regard to insured vehicle. 7. I have also perused the document Exhibit 6 i.e. cover note issused by the insurance company according to which the premium of only driver was taken by the insurance company with regard to insured vehicle. 7. 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 & 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) 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. 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 view of the above discussion, no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. Hence, the appeal filed by the appellant stands dismissed.