BENCH AT JAIPUR vs Bhagwana Ram S/o Shri Chimna Ram, Resident Of Village on 18 Feb 2025

Judgment

1. Bhagwana Ram S/o Shri Chimna Ram, Resident Of Village Parasrampura, Tehsil Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan).

2. Smt. Ramkori, W/o Bhagwana Ram, Resident Of Village Parasrampura, Tehsil Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu(Rajasthan).

3. Meetha Lal Meena S/o Kana Ram Meena, Resident Of 25, Jain Vatika Colony, Behind Chokhi Dhani, Tonk Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan),(Registered Owner Jeep Taxi No. Rj 14- T 6749).

4. Raghuvir S/o Ram Kumar, Resident Of Village Parasrampura, Tehsil Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan). ----Respondents For Appellant(s)

: Mr. M.F. Baig For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ripu Daman Singh Naruka with Mr. Ashir Gauri HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 18/02/2025

1. Instant S.B. Civil Misc. appeal is preferred by appellant-non- claimant aggrieved from award dated 07.09.2009 in case no. WCC/F/48/2007 passed by the Commissioner Workman Compensation Act, Sikar whereby on application of respondent nos. 1 and 2 the Commissioner has awarded the compensation on [2025:RJ-JP:16906] (2 of 7) [CMA-5340/2009] death of son of claimants and directed present appellant to make payment.

2. Learned counsel for appellant non-claimant submitted that respondent nos. 1 and 2 have filed a claim petition on false ground but instead of dismissing the claim petition against the present appellant the Commissioner has allowed the same and passed an award against the appellant which is contrary to material available on record. He also referred the record and submitted that the facts in the case clearly indicate that deceased Nemi Chand who was son of claimants was working as a driver of Jeep No. RJ14 T6749 and this jeep was owned by non-claimant no.3 Raghuveer. He further referred the registration certificate Ex. A/3 and submitted that when a vehicle is owned by non-claimant no.3, and operating in his control then present appellant cannot be held liable to make payment on death of driver of said vehicle. He further submitted that there is not a single document to connect present appellant with taxi no. RJ14 T6749. He further submitted that the vehicle in question was never used by appellant for recovery and deceased was never employed by appellant. At last, he submitted that the Commissioner, Workman Compensation Act has gone beyond the valid ground under the Act. He also referred the judgment in case of Dr. B. Radhakrishna Vs. Gouramma 1994(ii) LLJ 584 and submitted that when a specific issue is not framed by the Commissioner, the only option is to remit the matter after setting aside the award.

3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel for respondent(s). Learned counsel for respondent(s) placed reliance upon judgment in case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. [2025:RJ-JP:16906] (3 of 7) [CMA-5340/2009] Vs. Dwarika Bai and Ors. S.B. CMA no. 96/2013, order dated 25.07.2023) passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and submitted that there is no ground to discharge appellant from liability of payment under the award. He further referred the hire- purchase agreement between non-claimant no.3 Raghuveer and present appellant and submitted that on non-payment of instalments by non-claimant no,3. said vehicle was procured by appellant and since then this vehicle is used for recovery of dues by present appellant. He further submits that the deceased was working under the control of manager of appellant. He further referred the judgment in case of Golla Rajanna etc. Vs. Divisional Manager and Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 11114- 11119/2016 and submitted that this Hon’ble this Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence on record on findings of facts. He further submitted there a limited scope of interference in civil misc. appeal under Section 30 of Workman Compensation Act.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. The instant appeal is preferred by appellant, who was non- claimant no.2 before the Commissioner of Workman Compensation Act. The only objection of appellant is absence of privity of contract between appellant and deceased.

6. Claimants Bhagwana Ram and Ram Kori have filed a claim petition under the Workman Compensation Act before the Commissioner regarding compensation on death of their son in an accident occurred on 28.06.2007 by use of Jeep Taxi no. RJ14 T6749. As per facts narrated by claimants, the deceased Nemi Chand was working as a driver on Jeep No. RJ14 T6749 and on [2025:RJ-JP:16906] (4 of 7) [CMA-5340/2009] date of accident he was plying the vehicle to recover dues as recovery agent. The claimants have averred that deceased was earning ₹5,000/- per month and they are entitled for compensation from non-applicants.

7. After issuance of notice non-claimant no.2 (present appellant) has filed reply and denied the facts narrated by claimants and pleaded that the appellant non-claimant never remained employer of deceased. Initially, non-claimant no.3 remained absent but later on he appeared and filed reply. Non- claimant no.1 has not filed any reply. The tribunal has framed as many as four issues. Three witnesses Bhagwana Ram, Pyare Lal, Hari Singh were examined by claimants and some documents were exhibited whereas Punit Gupta was examined on behalf of present appellant (non-claimant no.2). The tribunal has decided issue nos. 1, 2 and 3 in favour of claimants and directed present appellant to make payment to the claimants.

8. While considering this appeal on 30.03.2022 a Co-ordinate Bench has admitted the appeal. Now we are finally disposing of the appeal.

9. In case of Golla Rajanna (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering Section 30 of Workman Compensation Act has laid down as under: “11. 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 [2025:RJ-JP:16906] (5 of 7) [CMA-5340/2009] made by the High Court is not within the competence of the High Court under Section 30 of the Act.”

10. In case of Oriental Insurance Company Vs. Dwarika Bai (supra), a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while relying upon case of Gola Rajanna (supra), has observed that it is settled position of law that limited jurisdiction has been given to High Court on the substantial question of law and High Court cannot re- appreciate the evidence on finding of fact recorded by the Commissioner. The Commissioner is final authority on facts and this court has to see whether grounds raised is question of fact or law.

11. On 30.03.2022 when this appeal was admitted then no substantial question of law was framed. As per Section 30 there is limited scope of appeal and appeal normally not allowed to unsettle any issue of fact.

12. Herein this case, the appellant non-claimant no.2, a finance company has denied the relationship of employer and workman. The tribunal after considering the evidence of claimants and also of non-claimant Punit Gupta has observed that the vehicle used by finance company was affirmed in written reply by non-claimant no.3 Raghuveer Singh, who is the registered owner. Moreover, three witnesses examined by claimants have deposed that the vehicle was used for recovery purposes by present appellant.

13. Learned counsel for respondent(s) placed reliance upon higher purchase agreement entered between present appellant and Raghuveer and it indicates that present appellant is having a connect with the vehicle involved in question. It is also an admitted position that by use of vehicle no. RJ14 T6749, driven by [2025:RJ-JP:16906] (6 of 7) [CMA-5340/2009] deceased Nemi Chand, the accident has occurred resulting in death of Nemi Chand and evidence suggests that this vehicle was used to recover dues from borrowers and operating under instruction of Manager of appellant. The registration document is in the name of non-claimant no.3 Raghuveer but it is under the hire-purchase agreement with present appellant. It is also an admitted position that no document to establish the incident of employment with appellant is filed by claimants. Even no document relating to income of deceased is placed on record. The registered owner Raghuveer has supported the case of claimants. The admission of NAW-1 Punit Gupta indicates that the vehicles whose owner defaults in making payment of EMI, the same is used for recovery. The facts of seizure or use of offending vehicle has been denied by this NAW-1, but no details of regular payment of EMI of this vehicle is filed by him.

14. The Commissioner on the basis of evidence on record has drawn a conclusion in favour of claimants. If we apply the principle of pre-ponderence of probability even then, it is established that the vehicle in question was on higher purchase agreement and same was used for recovery work by present appellant. The rebuttal by appellant is not sufficient to discard the evidence of claimants.

15. Though the Commissioner has not framed any substantial issue but no such prayer is made by appellant before the tribunal, therefore, the judgment in case of Dr. B. Radhakrishna (supra), is not applicable, here. The issues framed on the basis of pleadings of the parties were addressed by the Commissioner and there is no perversity. [2025:RJ-JP:16906] (7 of 7) [CMA-5340/2009]

16. Having gone through the material on record including evidence of both the parties, I am of the considered view that no ground is made out for interference in the reasoned order passed Commissioner of WC Act.

17. Thus, the civil misc. appeal sans merit and same is liable to be dismissed.

18. In view of aforesaid, the instant civil misc. appeal is hereby dismissed.

19. No order as to costs. CHETNA BEHRANI /329 (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J