Non-claimant/ v. Smt. Nanudi Devi W/o Late Maluram, R/o Village Nanda, Teh. Nawan, Distt. Nagaur

Judgment

9. ----Non-claimant/Appellant Versus Smt. Nanudi Devi W/o Late Maluram, R/o Village Nanda, Teh. Nawan, Distt. Nagaur, Presently R/o Village Chhapri, Teh. Sambhar, Distt. Jaipur Durga Devi D/o Late Maluram Claimants No. 2 To 6 Are Being Minor Through Their Natural Guardian And, R/o Village Nanda, Teh. Nawan, Distt. Nagaur, Presently R/o Village Chhapri, Teh. Sambhar, Distt. Jaipur Bidam Devi D/o Late Maluram, R/o Village Nanda, Teh. Nawan, Distt. Nagaur, Presently R/o Village Chhapri, Teh. Sambhar, Distt. Jaipur Jagdish S/o Late Maluram, R/o Village Nanda, Teh. Nawan, Distt. Nagaur, Presently R/o Village Chhapri, Teh. Sambhar, Distt. Jaipur Manju Devi D/o Late Maluram, R/o Village Nanda, Teh. Nawan, Distt. Nagaur, Presently R/o Village Chhapri, Teh. Sambhar, Distt. Jaipur Pooja Devi D/o Late Maluram, R/o Village Nanda, Teh. Nawan, Distt. Nagaur, Presently R/o Village Chhapri, Teh. Sambhar, Distt. Jaipur Mangaturam S/o Late Andaram, R/o Village Nanda, Teh. Nawan, Distt. Nagaur, Presently R/o Village Chhapri, Teh. Sambhar, Distt. Jaipur

Smt. Aachudi W/o Manguram, R/o Village Nanda, Teh. Nawan, Distt. Nagaur, Presently R/o Village Chhapri, Teh. Sambhar, Distt. Jaipur ----Claimant/Respondents Shri Arjun Singh S/o Shri Kalusingh, R/o Village Aau, Teh. Kishangarh, Distt. Ajmer ----Non-claimant/Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rizwan Ahmed For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dilip Singh Shekhawat HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 29/07/2025

1. The present appeal has been filed by the non-claimant/appellant under Section 30 of the Employees [2025:RJ-JP:28575] (2 of 6) [CMA-3717/2012] Compensation Act, 1923 against the order dated 23.08.2012 passed by learned Commissioner, Jaipur (I), Jaipur under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 in WCCF/159/2009 titled as Smt. Nanudi Devi & Ors. vs. Shri Arjun Singh & Ors., whereby the claim petition filed by the claimant/respondent Nos.1 to 8 was partly allowed and a sum of Rs.3,58,765/- along with interest @ 12% per annum was awarded as compensation.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on

14.03.2008, the deceased- Malu Ram while driving the tractor No. RJ-01-R-8597 (owned by the non-claimant/respondent- Arjun Singh) during the course of his employment, the tractor went into a ditch, the deceased fell down and was crushed under the tyres, as a result of which he sustained injuries and died on the spot. Due to the death of Malu Ram, the claimant/respondent Nos.1 to 8 filed the claim petition for awarding just compensation.

3. The non-claimant/respondent despite service of notice, chose not to appear before the learned Commissioner, therefore, ex parte proceedings were drawn against him vide order dated

05.08.2012.

4. The non-claimant/appellant- Insurance Company filed a detailed reply to the claim petition and denied the averments made therein, it was also contended that the deceased was not the driver of the said tractor and employment of the deceased with the owner was also in dispute and accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Commissioner framed five (5) issues. [2025:RJ-JP:28575] (3 of 6) [CMA-3717/2012]

6. After hearing the arguments of the parties, the learned Commissioner partly allowed the claim petition filed by the claimant/respondents and awarded a sum of Rs.3,58,765/- along with interest @ 12% per annum as compensation.

7. Being aggrieved of which, the non-claimant/appellant has preferred the present appeal.

8. Learned counsel for the non-claimant/appellant submits that as per the evidence available on record that the deceased was sitting on the trolley and some other person was driving the tractor. He further submits that the employment of the deceased over the insured vehicle, is not proved, and that the driving license of the deceased was not produced on record, therefore, the same may kindly be quashed and set aside.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant/respondents opposes the submissions made by the learned opposing counsel and submits that the learned Commissioner, has, after due appreciation of facts and law, decided all the five (5) issues in favour of the claimant/respondents and has rightly awarded a just and proper compensation. He further submits that the statements made by learned counsel for the non-claimant/appellant does not fall within the realms of substantial questions of law, therefore, prays for dismissal of the appeal.

10. Heard and considered the submissions made at bar, and also perused the material available on record.

11. From the aforementioned submissions made by learned counsel for the non-claimant/appellant, it is evident that the questions which the non-claimant/appellant is raising now in this appeal are purely questions of fact. [2025:RJ-JP:28575] (4 of 6) [CMA-3717/2012]

12. From a bare perusal of the findings recorded by the learned Commissioner, it is evident that the learned Commissioner has categorically held that the deceased- Malu Ram was working as driver over tractor, bearing no. RJ-01-R-8957, and was an employee of Arjun Singh and died during the course of employment and after considering the facts of the case as well as the defence put forth by the non-claimant/appellant, has awarded a just compensation while assessing the age of the deceased to be 30 years; and income of the deceased as Rs.3,450/- per month by considering minimum wage at Rs.115/- per day. A bare look at the impugned award shows that finding recorded under the award is finding of facts and does not suffer from any legal infirmity or perversity.

13. Since all the questions so raised by learned counsel for the non-claimant/appellant are questions of fact and do not fall within the purview of substantial question of law.

14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Golla Rajanna Etc. Vs. The Divisional Manager and anr. reported in 2017 (1) SCC 45, held 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 lumpsum 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; [2025:RJ-JP:28575] (5 of 6) [CMA-3717/2012] [(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 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 [2025:RJ-JP:28575] (6 of 6) [CMA-3717/2012] 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.

15. It is a well-settled position of law that a limited jurisdiction has been given to the High Court, which is to be confined within the contours of substantial question of law only, the High Court cannot venture out of the same and re-appreciate the evidence and findings of fact recorded on the evidence led by both the parties.

16. This Court finds no reasonable ground to interfere with any of the factual findings. None of the factual findings are found to be either perverse; or arbitrary; or based on non-appreciation of evidence, or against any provision of law. This Court accordingly upholds the findings arrived at by the learned Commissioner.

17. Since the appeal does not fall within the contours of substantial question of law, which is mandatory under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, therefore, no interference is called for in this appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed.

18. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed.

19. All pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed. DEEPA-40 (MANEESH SHARMA),J