Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 2042 (RAJ)

Shriram General Insurance Co Ltd v. Foru Lal

2021-10-27

SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

body2021
ORDER S.B. Civil Restoration Application No.216/2019:- 1. The matter comes up on an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay in filing the restoration application. 2. For the reasons stated therein, the application is allowed. The delay of 195 days in filing the restoration application is condoned. 3. Heard on the restoration application. 4. For the reasons stated in the restoration application, Registry is directed to restore the civil misc. appeal to its original number. 5. The restoration application stands allowed. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1768/2013:- 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that since it was a fresh matter in which notices had not been issued to the respondents. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the issue involved in the present appeal stands finally adjudicated by this court in SB Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1580/2012, The National Insurance Company Limited Versus Durga Lal & Ors. decided on 21.10.2021 wherein this court has held as under:- "6. In case of Golla Rajanna (supra) the Apex Court has observed as under:- "8. 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." 7. In another case of North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs. Smt. Sujatha reported in (2019) 11 SCC 514 , the Supreme Court has observed as under:- "9. The whole exercise made by the High Court is not within the competence of the High Court under Section 30 of the Act." 7. In another case of North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs. Smt. Sujatha reported in (2019) 11 SCC 514 , the Supreme Court has observed as under:- "9. At the outset, we may take note of the fact, being a settled principle, that the question as to whether the employee met with an accident, whether the accident occurred during the course of employment, whether it arose out of an employment, how and in what manner the accident occurred, who was negligent in causing the accident, whether there existed any relationship of employee and employer, what was the age and monthly salary of the employee, how many are the dependents of the deceased employee, the extent of disability caused to the employee due to injuries suffered in an accident, whether there was any insurance coverage obtained by the employer to cover the incident etc. are some of the material issues which arise for the just decision of the Commissioner in a claim petition when an employee suffers any bodily injury or dies during the course of his employment and he/his LRs sue/s his employer to claim compensation under the Act. 10. The afore-mentioned questions are essentially the questions of fact and, therefore, they are required to be proved with the aid of evidence. Once they are proved either way, the findings recorded thereon are regarded as the findings of fact." 8. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company has raised before this Court a question regarding the finding of fact of employer-employee relationship arrived at by the Commissioner. 9. Keeping in view above, the said question being pure question of fact, cannot be examined in an appeal and substantial question of law cannot be said to be made out from the said argument. 10. Learned counsel has also raised objections regarding the breach of policy condition, however, once a finding of fact has come on record regarding the employer-employee relationship between deceased and owner of the truck, the provisions of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 would apply thereto and therefore there is no jurisdictional error. 11. 10. Learned counsel has also raised objections regarding the breach of policy condition, however, once a finding of fact has come on record regarding the employer-employee relationship between deceased and owner of the truck, the provisions of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 would apply thereto and therefore there is no jurisdictional error. 11. Accordingly, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be examined within the scope of appeal and this Court is satisfied that there is no substantial question of law involved. Therefore, appeal under Section 13(1) would not be sustainable. 12. Accordingly, the civil misc. appeal is dismissed." 8. Keeping in view the law as laid down by the Apex Court as noted above and taking into consideration that the same grounds have been raised in the present appeal, the present appeal is held to be not maintainable as there is no substantial question of law involved. 9. The civil misc. appeal is accordingly dismissed.