Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1389 (RAJ)

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ram Swaroop

2022-05-04

ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

body2022
JUDGMENT Anoop Kumar Dhand, J. - Instant appeal has been submitted against the judgment dated 17.04.2013 passed by the Employee's Compensation Commissioner, Bundi (Raj.) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commissioner') in Claim Petition No. WCC/F/37/2011 by which the claim petition filed by the claimants-respondents has been allowed and the appellant-Insurance Company has been directed to pay compensation of Rs. 10,43,228/- to the claimants-respondents. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the claimants-respondents filed a claim petition under the provisions of Workmens' Compensation Act, claiming compensation on account of death of Kailash Chand, who died in an accident occurred on 05.03.2011. It was stated in the claim petition that the death was occurred during the course of employment, hence, the claimants-respondents are entitled to get compensation as the deceased was working as a driver and drawing salary of Rs. 8000/- per month. 3. The owner of the vehicle submitted reply to the claim petition and admitted that the deceased was working as a Khalasi but he has not appeared in the witness box. And the appellant-Insurance Company has submitted its reply and denied the averments made in the claim petition and raised objection that there was no relationship of employee and employer between the insured and the deceased, as the deceased was said to be a Khalasi, while in the claim petition it was pleaded that he was acting as a First Driver in the vehicle. 4. It was also pleaded that the accident has occurred when the vehicle in question was driven by the first driver Girdhari Meena. It was also pleaded that no premium was taken for other driver or other person, hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to make any sort of compensation to the claimants-respondents. 5. After hearing the parties, the Commissioner allowed the claim petition directing the appellant-Insurance Company to pay compensation of Rs. 10,43,228/- to the claimants-respondents. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award dated 17.04.2013, the appellant-Insurance Company has preferred instant appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that the Commissioner has committed an error while allowing the claim petition as the claimants-respondents have failed to prove the relationship of employer and employee and in the claim petition, the status of the deceased is mentioned as driver, while in the evidence, it is stated that the deceased was working as a Khalasi. Reiterating the pleadings made in the reply, counsel further submitted that since no premium was taken for the second driver/person, hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to make compensation to the claimants-respondents. 8. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Manager, National Insurance Company Limited v. Saju P. Paul & Anr. reported in (2013) 2 SCC 41 . 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants-respondents opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the appellant and submitted that the deceased was working as a driver with the owner of the insured vehicle, but the owner of the vehicle submitted in its reply that the deceased was working as a Khalasi and he has not appeared in the witness box. Learned counsel further submitted that the finding of facts has been recorded by the learned Commissioner, which is based on sound appreciation of evidence, so, the same are not liable to be disturbed by this Court. 10. Learned counsel in support of his contentions has placed reliance on the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Golla Rajanna Etc. v. The Divisional Manager And Anr." reported in 2017(1) SCC 45 and in the case of "North East Karnataka Transport Corporation v. Smt. Sujatha" reported in 2019 (11) SCC 514 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the finding of fact cannot be allowed to be reagitated and the limited jurisdiction has been given to the High Court confined to the substantial question of law only. 11. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 12. In the considered opinion of this Court, the findings given by the Commissioner are based on sound appreciation of the evidence. In the opinion of this Court, the learned Commissioner is the last authority on facts as it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Golla Rajanna (supra) in Para Nos. 8 & 10 as under: "8. Section 30 of the Act provides for appeal to the High Court. To the extent, the provision reads as follows; 30. 8 & 10 as under: "8. Section 30 of the Act provides for appeal 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 Sub-section (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 question 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." 13. The similar view has been expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sujatha (supra) wherein it has specifically held in Para Nos. 9 to 12 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." 13. The similar view has been expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sujatha (supra) wherein it has specifically held in Para Nos. 9 to 12 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 dependants 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 aforementioned 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. 11. The appeal provided under Section 30 of the Act to the High Court against the order of the Commissioner lies only against the specific orders set out in clauses (a) to (e) of Section 30 of the Act with a further rider contained in the first proviso to the section that the appeal must involve substantial questions of law. 12. In other words, the appeal provided under Section 30 of the Act to the High Court against the order of the Commissioner is not like a regular first appeal akin to Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which can he heard both on facts and law. The appellate jurisdiction of the High Court to decide the appeal is confined only to examine the substantial questions of law arising in the case." 14. The appellate jurisdiction of the High Court to decide the appeal is confined only to examine the substantial questions of law arising in the case." 14. In view of the settled position of law that limited jurisdiction has been given to the High Court confined to the substantial question of law only and the High Court cannot venture and reappreciate the evidence and finding of fact recorded on the evidence led by both the parties. This Court finds no good ground to call for any interference on any of the factual findings. None of the factual findings are found to be either perverse or arbitrary or based on no evidence or against any provision of law. This Court accordingly uphold these findings. 15. The judgment cited by the counsel for the appellant in the case of Saju P. Paul (supra) is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. As the relationship of employee and employer has been established in this case by the Commissioner by recording the finding of fact. 16. Since the appeal is not qualifying to have a substantial question of law, which is mandatory under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. 17. The upshot of the aforesaid discussion is that the appeal filed by the appellant fails and deserves to be dismissed. 18. Accordingly, the instant misc. appeal stands dismissed. 19. Stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 20. There is no order as to cost.