District Jaipur (Raj.) ----Claimants/ v. Mahajan, Data Ramgadh, District Sikar

Judgment

1. The present appeal has been filed by the claimants/appellants under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 against the order dated 21.01.2013 passed by learned Commissioner, Jaipur City, Jaipur under Employees Compensation Act, in WCCF/277/2012, whereby the claim petition filed by the claimants/appellants was dismissed.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the deceased- Deep Chand was alleged to have been working as a driver on a car-Bolero bearing registration No. RJ-30-U-0209 and on 17.01.2009 while he was going to Kota with some passengers in the said vehicle. On 21.01.2009, he was found dead near Sale Tax Naka on National Highway No.12 near Sharawada. Due to [2025:RJ-JP:26406] (2 of 6) [CMA-1205/2013] death of Deep Chand, the claimants/appellants filed the claim petition seeking for a just compensation.

3. The notice of the claim petition was served upon the non- claimants/respondents, wherein the non-claimants/respondents No.1 (owner of the said vehicle) despite filing a Vakalatnama neither filed any reply to the claim petition nor did he put in presence before the learned Commissioner, therefore, his right to file reply was closed on 10.01.2011.

4. The non-claimant/respondent No.2- Insurance Company filed a reply to the claim petition and stated that they were not informed about the incident and that the learned Commissioner did not have the requisite jurisdiction to adjudicate the case and accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned Commissioner framed five (5) issues.

6. In order to substantiate the averments made in the claim petition, the claimants/appellants filed an affidavit of the father of

the deceased and produced copy of the FIR, RC, Insurance Policy, post-mortem report, charge-sheet, death certificate and DL as documentary evidence.

7. In rebuttal, the Insurance Company examined V.N. Dhurairaj and produced statement of Sohanlal and Sanjay Khetan, order- sheets, FIR, and charge-sheet, Investigation report, agreement to sell as documentary evidence.

8. Learned Commissioner, after hearing arguments of the parties, while deciding issue No.2, has recorded a finding of fact that the vehicle in question was sold by non-claimant/respondent No.1 to Sohan Lal Yadav (Ex. A-2), therefore, the learned Commissioner held that the claimants/appellants have failed to [2025:RJ-JP:26406] (3 of 6) [CMA-1205/2013] prove the relationship of an employee and employer between the deceased and the non-claimant/respondent No.1 and accordingly, dismissed the claim petition.

9. Being aggrieved of which, the claimants/appellants preferred the present appeal.

10. Learned counsel for the claimants/appellants submits that the finding recorded by learned Commissioner is arbitrary and perverse, therefore, the same may kindly be set aside and the matter be remitted back.

11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned order and submits that as per record of the case, it is duly established that vehicle in question was sold on

22.06.2008 (Ex. A-2), much prior to 17.01.2009, therefore, it cannot be said that the deceased was employee of non-claimant/respondent No.1. He further submits that learned Commissioner after due consideration of the facts has rightly dismissed the claim petition, and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

12. Heard and considered the submissions made at bar, and also the material available on record.

13. From the record, it is evident that the deceased started his journey on 17.01.2009 and was murdered on 21.01.2009 and from Ex. A-2, it is reflected that the vehicle in question was sold by the non-claimant/respondent No.1 to Sh. Sohan Lal Yadav on

22.06.2008 (almost six months prior to the death of the deceased), therefore, it cannot be said that on the date of the death of the deceased- Deep Chand, he was an employee of non- claimant/respondent No.1. [2025:RJ-JP:26406] (4 of 6) [CMA-1205/2013]

14. Admittedly, after the said documents were placed on record, by the non-claimants, the claimants/appellants did not implead his employer i.e. Sh. Sohan Lal Yadav, therefore, the learned Commissioner has rightly dismissed the claim petition and held that on the date of the accident, the claimants/appellants failed to prove the relationship of an employer and employee between the deceased and non-claimant-respondent No.1, and thus, the learned Commissioner has recorded a well reasoned finding of fact against the claimants/appellants.

15. The finding recorded by the learned Commissioner about the selling of the vehicle in question much prior to death of the deceased as well as non-proving of the relationship of employee and employer between the deceased and non- claimant/respondent No. 1 is a finding of fact, since all the submissions made in the present appeal are related to the questions of fact and does not falls within the preview of substantial question of law.

16. 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 [2025:RJ-JP:26406] (5 of 6) [CMA-1205/2013] 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 (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 [2025:RJ-JP:26406] (6 of 6) [CMA-1205/2013] Court is not within the competence of the High Court under Section 30 of the Act.

17. 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. 18. This Court find no good ground to call for any interference on any of the factual findings. None of the factual findings are found to be either perverse or arbitrary or based on no evidence or against any provision of law. This Court accordingly upholds these findings.

19. 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.

20. All pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed. DEEPA-34 (MANEESH SHARMA),J