United India Insurance Co Ltd. having its Regional office at v. Sahara Chambers, Jaipur

Smt. Madhu Devi W/o Late Shri Jitendra Prasad, aged about 29 years.

Kumar Sanjana D/o Late Shri Jitendra Prasad, aged about 09 years.

Kumar Sweta D/o Late Shri Jitendra Prasad, aged about 06 years.

Om Kumar S/o Late Shri Jitendra Prasad, aged about 04 years.

Kumari Chahat D/o Late Shri Jitendra Prasad, aged about 02 years.

Madanlal S/o Late Shri Kashinath, aged about 72 years. Claimants-respondents No. 2 to 5 are being minor through their natural guardian and mother Smt. Madhu Devi W/o Late Jitendra Kumar All R/o Tadwa Parasiya, Teh. Daroli, Distt. Siwan, Bihar, presently R/o E-352, Block E, J.J. Camp Tigdi, New Delhi

Bharat Kumar Chaudhary S/o Shri Keshav Lal Chaudhary Tarachandra R/o Khata Amba, P.S. Mansa Mandi, Teh. Mansa, Gandhi Nagar, Gujarat (Owner). ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rizwan Ahmed, Adv. with Mr. Mohsin, Adv. For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS 30/03/2026 Judgment / Order vihykFkhZ&izfroknh Øe&2 ¼vkxs ^^vihykFkhZ^^ dgk tkosxk½ chek daiuh dh vksj ls ;g vihy /kkjk 30 deZdkj {kfriwfrZ vf/kfu;e] 1923 [2026:RJ-JP:13259] (2 of 3) [CMA-292/2014] ¼vkxs ^^vf/kfu;e&1923^^ dgk tkosxk½ ds rgr fo}ku U;k;ky;] vk; qDr deZpkjh {kfriwfrZ vf/kfu;e] t;iqj ftyk&f}rh; }kjk izdj.k W.C.C.F/180/2012 esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 03-12-2013 ls O;fFkr gksdj is'k dh gS] ftlds ek/;e ls izR;FkhZ@nkosnkj dks dqy 6]23]940@&:i;s e; 12 izfr'kr okf"kZd C;kt lfgr izfrdj fnyk;k x;k gSA fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykFkhZ&chek daiuh dk fuosnu gS fd e`rd ds ikl ?kVuk ds le; tks ykbZlsal gksuk crk;k x;k gS] og dwVjfpr gS] izfrdj jkf'k vR;f/kd o vuqfpr gS rFkk nq?kZVuk esa Lo;a pkyd dh ykijokgh jgh gS] ,slh fLFkfr esa Dyse ;kfpdk Lohdkj ;ksX; ugha Fkh] var esa vihyk/khu fu.kZ; rF;ksa o fof/k ds foijhr gksuk crkrs gq, vikLr fd;s tkus dk fuosnu fd; kA izR;FkhZ i{k dh vksj ls dksbZ mifLFkr ugha gSA fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykFkhZ dh vksj ls tks vkifRr;ka yh xbZ gSa] os rF;ksa ds laca/k esa gS vkSj bl ij fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk nksuksa i{kksa dh lk{; ij lE;d :i ls fopkj djus ds mijkar vihyk/khu fu.kZ; ikfjr fd;k gSA North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs. Smt. Sujatha (2019) 11 SCC 514 ,oa ^^vf/kfu;e&1923** dh /kkjk 30 ds izko/kkuksa ds vuqlkj tc rd fof/k dk dksbZ lkjoku iz'u varoZfyr ugha gks] rc rd ;g vihy iks"k.kh; ugha gSA ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; dk U;kf;d fu.kZ; North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs. Smt. Sujatha (Supra) lqlaxr gS] ftlds iSjk la[;k&9] 10] 11 o 12 fuEukuqlkj gSa%&

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 [2026:RJ-JP:13259] (3 of 3) [CMA-292/2014] 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.

The appeal provided under Section 30 of the Act to the High Court against the order of the Commissioner lie only against the specific orders set out in clause (a) to (e) of Section 30 of the Act with a further rider contained in first proviso to the Section that the appeal must involve substantial question of law.

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 be 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. mijksDr ifjfLFkfr; ksa esa fof/k dk dksbZ lkjoku iz'u bl ekeys esa vUroZfyr ugha gS] bl izdkj U;kf;d fu.kZ; North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation ¼iwoksZDr½ esa izfrikfnr O;oLFkk rFkk ^^vf/kfu;e&1923** dh /kkjk&30 ds vuqlkj ;g vihy iks"k.kh; ugha gksus ls [kkfjt gksus ;ksX; gSA ifj.kker% vihykFkhZ&chek daiuh dh vksj ls izLrqr ;g vihy [kkfjt dh tkrh gS rFkk vihyk/khu fu.kZ; fnukad 03-12-2013 dh iqf"V dh tkrh gSA LFkxu vkosnu o vU; vkosnu] ;fn dksbZ yafcr gksa] rks os Hkh mDrkuqlkj fuLrkfjr fd;s tkrs gSaA fopkj.k U;k;ky; dk vfHkys[k] ;fn izkIr gks j[kk gS] rks vkns'k dh izfr ds lkFk izsf"kr fd;k tkosA (UMA SHANKER VYAS),J DINESH KUMAWAT /24