Divisional Office, Anand Bhawan, S.C. Road, Jaipur (Raj.) v. Branch Office, Sansar Chandra Road, Jaipur

: Mr. Vinay Mathur HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 22/04/2025 MANEESH SHARMA, J (ORAL):

1. On the request of learned counsel for the appellant service upon respondent No.3-Onkara Roadways Ltd. is dispensed with, hence, service is complete.

2. With the consent of the parties, the instant appeal is being heard finally on merits.

3. The brief facts of the case giving rise to the present appeal are that the parents of the deceased Ram Niwas filed a claim petition under the provisions of Employees Compensation Act, 1923 before the learned Commissioner against the employer and the appellant-Oriental Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter [2025:RJ-JP:16926] (2 of 8) [CMA-440/2013] referred as Insurance Company) stating therein that the deceased Ram Niwas having age of 18 years, was working as a Khallasi on a Truck bearing No.PB-10BU-0214 and was going to Faridabad. While discharging his duties, another Truck came from opposite direction, collided with the Truck bearing No.PB-10BU-0214 and on account of such accident, deceased Ram Niwas sustained injuries and later on succumbed to death. Therefore, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 have filed claim petition.

4. The employee-respondent No.1 did not appear despite service, therefore, ex parte proceedings were drawn against him on 07.02.2012.

5. The Insurance Company, appellant herein filed detailed reply to the said claim petition and raised legal objections qua not giving notice under Section 10 as well as objection with regard to the fact that driver of the truck was not having effective and valid license and further disputed the relationship of employer and employee between deceased and respondent No.1. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties following issues have been framed:- "1- vk;k e`rd] foi{kh la-,d ds ;gka fnukad 29-12-2010 dks mlds okgu la[;k PB-10-BU-0214 ij cgSfl;r [kyklh fu;qDr Fkk \ 2- vk;k e`rd dh foi{kh la-,d ds fu;kstu esa mlds funsZ'kkuqlkj ,oa fgrkFkZ dk;Z djrs e`R;q gqbZ \ 3- vk;k foi{kh chek daiuh ds tokc nkos dk izkFkhZx.k ds izfrdj feyus ij D;k&D;k izHkko iM+sxk \ 4- vk;k izkFkhZx.k] foi{khx.k ls izfrdj ysus ds gdnkj gS \ ;fn gka] rks fdlls o fdruk&fdruk \ 5- vuqrks"k \ " [2025:RJ-JP:16926] (3 of 8) [CMA-440/2013]

6. That in order to substantiate the pleas or averments of the claim, father of the deceased examined himself and produced documentary evidence, whereas Insurance Company despite granting opportunity had not lead any evidence.

7. The learned Commissioner while hearing respective counsels for the parties decided issue Nos.1 to 4 in favour of claimants and allowed the claim petition and directed respondent to pay compensation amounting to Rs.6,79,140/- with interest @ 12% w.e.f. 29.12.2010.

8. Feeling aggrieved of which, the Insurance Company has preferred this appeal under Section 30(1)(a) and 30(1)(aa) of Employees Compensation Act, 1923.

9. Contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the deceased was relative of the driver and he was not working as Khallasi. Therefore, it cannot be said that the death of Ram Niwas was caused during the course of employment, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation.

10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimant supported the impugned order and submitted that evidence in detail has been led by the claimant to substantiate the fact that the deceased was employed as Khallasi over the vehicle in question. He further submitted that the Insurance Company despite giving opportunities has not led any evidence and conclusive finding of fact has been recorded by the learned Commissioner in this matter.

11. He further contended that scope of appeal under Employees Compensation Act is confined to the questions of law only but in [2025:RJ-JP:16926] (4 of 8) [CMA-440/2013] the present case, the questions of fact are involved regarding which the learned Commissioner has given finding in favour of the claimants-respondents.

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

13. A bare perusal to the impugned order reveals that the claimants succeeded in proving the fact that the deceased Ram Niwas was Khallasi over the Truck bearing No.PB-10BU-0214 and he died during the course of employment. On the contrary the Insurance Company despite raising the issue of the relationship of employer and employee did not lead any documentary evidence to rebutt the said evidence.

14. Learned Commissioner in the impugned order has decided all issues in favour of claimants and concluded that the relationship of employer and employee is well proved and deceased was Khallasi over the disputed Truck.

15. In the present case, all the questions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant are question of the facts as the learned Commissioner has clearly observed that the deceased was Khallasi over the disputed Truck and claimants have proved the fact that deceased was Khallasi of the vehicle and died during the course of employment and this evidence remained uncontroverted. The learned Commissioner who is the last authority on facts has given a finding that the deceased was Khallasi over the vehicle and by considering his age and income he has awarded compensation of Rs.6,79,140/- with interest @ 12% p.a. w.e.f. 29.12.2010. [2025:RJ-JP:16926] (5 of 8) [CMA-440/2013]

16. It is an undisputed fact that under the scheme of the Employees Compensation Act, the Commissioner is the last authority on facts and scope of present appeal is restricted to the substantial questions of law, being a welfare legislation, therefore, while dealing with the present appeals, the Court should take note of only substantial questions of law and not on the facts.

17. Argument raised by the counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company are based on finding of fact which cannot be appreciated as the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of " Golla Rajanna Etc. v. The Divisional Manager And Anr. " reported in 2017 (1) SCC 45 and "North East Karnataka Transport Corporation v. Smt. Sujatha" reported in 2019 (11) SCC 514, held that the finding of fact cannot be re-appreciated while deciding the appeal against the award and the appeal filed against the award passed by the learned Commissioner is not maintainable if any substantial question of law is not involved.

18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Golla Rajanna (supra). It has been held in Para No. 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 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: following orders of a Commissioner, [(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: [2025:RJ-JP:16926] (6 of 8) [CMA-440/2013] (d) an order allowing or disallowing any claim for the amount of an indemnity under the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 12; (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)

19. 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.

20. The similar view has been expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sujatha (supra). 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 [2025:RJ-JP:16926] (7 of 8) [CMA-440/2013] 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."

21. In "Smt. Ram Sakhi Devi v. Chhatra Devi", reported in JT 2005 (6) SC 167, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that without formulating substantial question of law appeal cannot be sustained.

22. In "M/s Krishna Weaving Mills, Ajmer v. Smt. Chandra Bhaga Devi wife of Mool Chand & Anr.", reported in 1985 (1) WLN 455, this Court while dealing with Workmen's Compensation Act has laid down law that unless there is a question of public importance or the substantial question of law is involve, the appeal under the Workmen's Compensation Act cannot be entertained. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows:- "8. Moreover, under section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act only substantial question of law can be agitated. In the present case, I am convinced that there is no involved. substantial 9. The question of public importance and question on which no final interpretation is available are known as substantial question of law. Even if this definition is further extended, it will have to bear in mind that there is vast difference between the question of law and substantial question of law. It is only when the question [2025:RJ-JP:16926] (8 of 8) [CMA-440/2013] question of law is not well settled and it is of importance, it would become a substantial questions of law."

23. Having gone through the findings of the Commissioner I am of the view that the findings recorded by the learned Commissioner are based on sound appreciation of evidence and there is no substantial questions of law involved in the present appeal and the question so raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is question of fact regarding which the final authority is Commissioner, who has recorded finding against the Insurance Company.

24. Even otherwise, a bare perusal of the impugned order, it reveals that there is no arbitrariness or perversity in the impugned order.

25. Accordingly, the appeal is devoid of merits and same is hereby dismissed.

26. Any other pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. SOURAV /11 (MANEESH SHARMA),J