BENCH AT JAIPUR v. Mukandgarh, District Jhunjhunu

Judgment

1. Instant appeal under Section 30 of the Workman Com- pensation Act, 1923 has been filed for enhancement of the award against the judgment dated 31.10.2014 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, Sikar in Claim case no. W.C.C./of/61/2011 (Vishwanath & Anr. v/s Rafiq Mohammad & Anr.), whereby meagre compensation has been awarded.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the deceased Sunil Sharma was working as a driver under the employment of respondent No.1 and while he was going under the instruc- tions of respondent No.1 to Sikar by driving the [2025:RJ-JP:18873] (2 of 9) [CMA-2367/2015] Innova Car bearing No.RJ-14-UB-2790, he suddenly noticed that a goat was standing in the middle of the road and while trying to save the goat, he lost control over the vehicle and the Vehicle fell into a deep pit and while taking the vehicle out, the rope was broken and the vehicle fell upon him. Thus, Sunil Sharma died during the course of employment. In such situation the claimants have filed a claim petition before the Workmen's Compensation Act.

3. After receiving notice of the claim petition, respondent No.1 filed a reply to the claim petition and admitted the fac- tum of employment of the deceased and also admitted the fact that the death was occurred during the course of em- ployment.

4. The Insurance Company also filed its reply to the claim petition and refuted the averments made in the claim peti- tion and further submitted that in view of Section 2 (30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the registered owner, Baid Lease and finance limited was not impleaded and prayed for rejection of the same.

5. The learned Commissioner framed the following is- sues:- ^^1- D;k e`rd dh e`R;q vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 ds fu;kstu o funsZ'ku esa dk;Z ds nkSjku ?kfVr nq?kZVuk esa vkbZ pksVksa ds QyLo:i gqbZ Fkh \ 2- oDr nq?kZVuk e`rd dh vk;q o osru D;k Fkk \ 3- D;k chek dEiuh dh 'krksZa dk mYya?ku gqvk gS rFkk bldk chek dEiuh ds {kfriwfrZ o C;kt vnk;xh ds nkf;Ro ij D;k izHkko gksxk \ [2025:RJ-JP:18873] (3 of 9) [CMA-2367/2015] 4- D;k oDr nq?kZVuk fu;ekuqlkj dsoy izkFkhZx.k gh e`rd ds vkfJr Fks\ 5- vuqrks"kA **

6. In order to substantiate the pleas and averments of the claim, the claimant-Vishwanath examined himself as AW-1 and produced documents Ex.1 to Ex.6, whereas the Insurance company, in order to convert the averments of the claim petition and the evidence so adduced, examined NAW-1 Babulal Saini.

7. After hearing the arguments of the respective parties and considering the age of the deceased to be 35 years and considering the income of the deceased to be Rs.6,000/, learned Commissioner awarded a compensation of Rs.5,91,180/- along with interest @ 9% p.a.

Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Commissioner erred in awarding an inadequate amount of compensation while assessing the income as Rs.6,000/- only as against the income of the deceased Rs.8,000/-, therefore, he submits that the compensation amount may kindly be enhanced.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the impugned award and submitted that the im- pugned award, based on due appreciation of pleadings and evidence of the parties, does not suffer from any illegality and he also submits that there is no question of law in the present appeal and therefore, the present appeal is liable to be dismissed. [2025:RJ-JP:18873] (4 of 9) [CMA-2367/2015]

10. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and pe- rused the record.

11. A bare perusal of the record, reveals that there is no documentary proof produced by the claimants to substanti- ate their contentions, quo income of deceased to be 8,000/- and even in the absense of any cogent evidence, the learned Commissioner, while taking into account the preva- lent salaries of the driver, awarded the compensation of Rs. 5,91,180/- while treating the income of the deceased to be Rs.6,000/-, and such an approach of the learned Commis- sioner appears to be justified and does not suffer from any legal infirmity.

12. That a bare perusal of the findings recorded by the learned Commissioner it is evident that there is no perver- sity rather the same is based on sound appreciation of evi- dence.

13. 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 falls within the realms of the question of fact. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Golla Rajanna Etc. Vs. The Divisional Manager and anr. reported in 2017 (1) SCC 45: "8. Section 30 of the Act provides for ap- peal to the High Court. To the extent, the provision reads as follows; [2025:RJ-JP:18873] (5 of 9) [CMA-2367/2015]

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 un- der the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 12; or (e) an order refusing to register a memo- randum 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 (Empha- sis supplied)

10. Under the scheme of the Act, the workmen's Compensation Commissioner [2025:RJ-JP:18873] (6 of 9) [CMA-2367/2015] is the last authority on facts. The Parlia- ment has thought it fit to restrict the scope of the appeal only to substantial question of law, being a welfare legisla- tion. Unfortunately, the High Court has missed this crucial question of limited ju- risdiction and has ventured to re appreci- ate 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.

14. Further, similar view has been expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of North East Karnatka Transport Corporation Vs. Smt. Sujatha reported in 2019 (11) SCC 514 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 em- ployment, how and in what manner the accident occurred, who was negligent in causing the acci- dent, 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 pe- [2025:RJ-JP:18873] (7 of 9) [CMA-2367/2015] tition when an employee suffers any bodily in- jury or dies during the course of his employ- ment and he/his LRs sue(s) his employer to claim compensation under the Act.

10. The aforementioned questions are essen- tially the questions of fact and, therefore, they are required to be proved with the aid of evi- dence. 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 or- ders 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 reg- ular 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 con- fined only to examine the substantial questions of law arising in the case."

15. In "M/s Krishna Weaving Mills, Ajmer Vs. Smt. Chandra Bhaga Devi wi f e of Mool Chand & Anr." , re- ported in 1985(1) WLN 455, this Court while dealing with Workmen's Compensation Act has laid down law that unless [2025:RJ-JP:18873] (8 of 9) [CMA-2367/2015] there is as question of public importance and there is no fi- nal interpretation available while the substantial question of law is arising, the appeal under the Workmen's Compensa- tion Act cannot been entertained. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows: "8. Moreover, under S. 30 of the Workmen Com- pensation Act only substantial question of law can be agitated. In the present case, I am con- vinced that there is no substantial question of law involved.

9. The question of public importance and ques- tion 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 be- tween the question of law and substantial ques- tion of law. It is only when the question of law is not well settled and it is of importance, it would become a substantial questions of law."

16. 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.

17. This Court find no good ground to call for any interfer- ence on any of the factual findings. None of the factual find- ings are found to be either perverse or arbitrary or based on no evidence or against any provision of law. This Court ac- cordingly upholds these findings. [2025:RJ-JP:18873] (9 of 9) [CMA-2367/2015]

18. 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 interfer- ence is called for in this appeal and the same is dismissed.

19. All pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed. (MANEESH SHARMA),J SOURAV /46 Whether Reportable : Yes/No