Bega Ram v. Dola Ram & Anr

Judgment

1. Bega Ram S/o Shri Hanmanram, R/o Thehut, Tehsil Dataramgarh, District Sikar ----Claimant/Respondent

2. Dola Ram S/o Shri Bhaguram, R/o Thehut, Tehsil Dataramgarh, District Sikar (Owner) ----Non-claimant/Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Mohsin on behalf of Mr. Rizwan Ahmed For Respondent(s)

: Mr. Anil Kumar HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA 09/07/2025 Order

1. From a bare perusal of the office report dated 19.05.2023, it has come on record that the non-claimant/respondent No.2-Dola Ram has expired 19.05.2023. As no steps have been taken by the non-claimant/appellant to bring the legal representatives of the non-claimant/respondent No.2-Dola Ram on record, therefore, the appeal against claimant/respondent No.2-Dola Ram, stands abated.

2. With the consent of the parties, appeal is finally heard.

3. The present appeal has been filed by the non- claimant/appellant-Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Insurance Company") under Section 30 of the [2025:RJ-JP:25321] (2 of 8) [CMA-1904/2015] Employee's Compensation Act, 1923, assailing the impugned award dated 31.03.2015 passed by Employees Compensation Commissioner, Sikar (hereinafter referred to as "learned Commissioner") in Claim Case No.WCC/NF/ 29/2010 titled as "Bega Ram Vs. Dola Ram & Anr.", whereby the learned Commissioner partly allowed the claim petition filed by the claimant/respondent, awarding a sum of Rs.2,81,646/- compensation along with interest @ 12% per annum.

4. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the claimant/respondent Bega Ram, was employed as a laborer by the Respondent No.2 on his Tractor (Registration No.RJ-23-R-5234) along with a Thresher machine for about a month prior to the accident. On 06.04.2010, while claimant/respondent No.1-Bega Ram was threshing crops, the driver, Kana Ram, abruptly started the Tractor as a result of which the tractor caught speed quickly. The claimant/respondent Bega Ram's hand slipped into the Thresher, causing severe injuries, including amputation of his fingers and thumb. Consequently, claimant/respondent Bega Ram filed a claim petition seeking compensation under the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 against the non-claimant/respondent (Owner) and the non-claimant/appellant Insurance Company of the Tractor.

5. The non-claimant/respondent (Owner) filed a reply to the said petition and did not dispute that the claimant/respondent was employed as a laborer and received injury during the course of employment.

6. The non-claimant/appellant–Insurance Company also filed its reply and submitted that the Insurance policy only covered the [2025:RJ-JP:25321] (3 of 8) [CMA-1904/2015] risk of the driver and not the risk of a cleaner or labourer, the driver did not possess a valid or effective driving license; it was only the Tractor that was insured, and not the Thresher; therefore, the Insurance Company stated that the liability to pay compensation to the claimant/respondent may not be fastened upon them.

7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Commissioner framed as many as four issues.

8. In order to substantiate the pleas and averments of the claim petition, the claimant/respondent No.1-Bega Ram examined witness himself as AW-1 and submitted documentary evidence from Ex-1 to Ex-14. These documents included the Copy of FIR (Ex-1), FR (Ex-2), Certificate from the Chief Medical Officer, PHC Dantaramgarh & Letter from SHO Dantaramgarh, (Ex-3), Site Inspection Memo (Ex-4), Medical documents & bills (Ex-5), Insurance Policy (Ex-10), Motor Vehicle Registration Certificate issued by the District Transport Officer (Ex-11), Permanent Disability Certificate (Ex-12), Driving License Tractor Driver (Ex- 13), Medical report and certificate from Government Hospital, Sikar (Ex-14).

9. In rebuttal, Insurance Company examined O.P. Meena, Branch Manager (DW-1).

10. Learned Commissioner, after considering the averments of claim Petition and material available on record, held that the evidence presented by the claimant proved that he was employed by the Respondent No.2 and the claimant suffered injuries during the course of employment. At the time of the accident, the claimant's age was assessed as 49 years and his income at [2025:RJ-JP:25321] (4 of 8) [CMA-1904/2015] Rs.4,000/- per month. Considering the amputation of fingers and a thumb, the functional disability was assessed at 75% by the learned Commissioner as against a permanent disablement of 49% assessed by the Medical Board. A total award of Rs.2,81,646/- compensation was passed, along with interest @ 12% per annum.

11. Being aggrieved by this award, the Insurance Company assailed the impugned order.

12. Learned counsel for the non-claimant/appellant-Insurance Company submitted that under the insurance policy, the Insurance Company only covered the driver of the Tractor, and only the Tractor was insured, not the Thresher. Therefore, no liability for compensation should be fastened upon the Insurance Company, and prayed for the quashing of the impugned award.

13. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant/respondent supported the award, submitting that the learned Commissioner, after due consideration of the facts and relevant law, awarded just compensation which does not warrant any interference in this appeal. He further submitted that the no substantial question of law is involved and prayed for the dismissal of the appeal.

14. Having heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available on record.

15. From a bare perusal of the impugned award, reflects that the claimant was employed as a laborer and, while performing his duty as instructed by his employer non-claimant/appellant, claimant sustained injuries to his hand, resulting in the amputation of his finger and thumb. [2025:RJ-JP:25321] (5 of 8) [CMA-1904/2015]

16. The questions raised by learned counsel for the non- claimant/appellant are that it was only the Tractor that was insured and not the Thresher lacks merit as such question has been decided by the Division Bench of this court in the judgment of Gopali Vs. Bhanwar Singh and Anr. decided on 21.10.2016, and in para 11 of the judgement it was held that:- "In that view of the matter and taking into consideration the over all view taken by all other Courts, we are of the opinion that the if the Thrasher is attached with the tractor, then it will include as a vehicle. In that view of the matter, we answer the question accordingly. However, we make it clear that if the Thrasher is attached with the tractor, only then it is a motor vehicle and not otherwise, subject to fulfilling other requisite conditions of the Motor Vehicles Act.". It is not disputed that the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gopali (supra), while answering the reference, has decided "that if the thresher is attached in the tractor, then it will include as a vehicle".

17. The learned Commissioner, after taking into consideration the facts, recorded a finding of fact against the non- claimant/appellant, while assessing the income of the injured at Rs.4,000/- and considering the functional disability of the non- claimant/appellant, the compensation was awarded by applying [2025:RJ-JP:25321] (6 of 8) [CMA-1904/2015] the tests enumerated in the Employee's Compensation Act 1923, resulting in a sum of Rs.2,81,646/- along with interest.

18. That under the provision of Employee Compensation Act, the learned Commissioner is the last authority on facts and all the question so raised by the appellant-Insurance Company falls within the realms of the question of fact. 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; [(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 [2025:RJ-JP:25321] (7 of 8) [CMA-1904/2015] (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.

19. It is 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 re appreciate the evidence and finding of fact recorded on the evidence led by both the parties.

20. This Court find no good ground to call for any interference on any of the factual findings. None of the factual findings are found [2025:RJ-JP:25321] (8 of 8) [CMA-1904/2015] to be either perverse or arbitrary or based on no evidence or against any provision of law. This Court accordingly upholds these findings.

21. 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, therefore, no interference is called for in this appeal and the same is dismissed.

22. All pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed. Seema/34 (MANEESH SHARMA),J