HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No v. 1. Ganesh Kumar Chauhan, aged about 25 years S/o Mohan Lal Chauhan, Resident of

: Mr. Praveen Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sunil Jain HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Judgment 26/05/2025

1. The instant Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred by the appellant-non-claimant/National Insurance Company aggrieved from award dated 03.07.2013 in Claim Case No.W.C.C./N.F./52/2011 passed by the Commissioner, Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923, Bundi whereby in a claim petition filed by Ganesh Kumar Chauhan, a compensation of Rs.3,28,630/- was awarded with interest, to respondent-claimant.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant while relying upon judgments in case of Gottumukkala Appala Narasimha Raju & Ors Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Another : 2007(2) RCR (Civil) 294, Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti [2025:RJ-JP:23147] (2 of 6) [CMA-2550/2013] Vs. Prabhakar Maruti Garvali & Anr. : AIR 2007 SC 248 and Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Mohd. Nasir and Anr. : 2009(3) RCR (Civil) 849, has submitted that the respondent No.1-claimant has filed a claim petition under the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to ‘the Act of 1923’) for alleged injury due to accident on 03.05.2011 by use of motor vehicle No. RJ 08 UA 1202. He further submitted that the facts narrated clearly indicate that the claimant is son of registered owner of vehicle, insured with present appellant- Insurance Company. He further submitted that the disability certificate filed on record is not in accordance with Rules and the Commissioner has assessed loss of income as 25% whereas actual assessment of permanent disability by doctor is 15%. Learned counsel has further referred the assessment of monthly income of claimant and submitted the income was assessed without any basis. At last, he submitted that the procedure adopted by the Commissioner is contrary to settled norms, hence, this appeal be admitted for consideration.

3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel for the respondent No.1-claimant. He submitted that Section 30 of the Act of 1923 specifically provides for admission of appeal only when the grounds give rise to substantial question of law. He submitted that all the grounds raised by learned counsel for the appellant are only on question of fact and these were answered with reasons by the Commissioner. He also submitted that the claimant is employed as driver on a vehicle owned by his father and his father is making payment on commercial terms. He also [2025:RJ-JP:23147] (3 of 6) [CMA-2550/2013] submitted that the medical certificate submitted in evidence was prepared after assessment by a Medical Board of three Doctors and on basis of evidence and material on record if the Commissioner found that the loss of earning capacity is more than 25%, he can award compensation after assessment of loss of income to the claimant. At last, he submitted that this Hon’ble Court cannot admit the appeal except on ground giving rise to substantial question of law.

4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the judgments as referred by the learned counsel for the appellant.

5. The matter pertains to the Employee's Compensation Act,

1923. Section 30 of the Act of 1923 is reproduced as under:- “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 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; (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*[employee], 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 [2025:RJ-JP:23147] (4 of 6) [CMA-2550/2013] in dispute in the appeal is not less than ten thousand rupees or such higher amount as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify : Provided further that no appeal shall lie in any case in which the parties have agreed to abide by the decision of the Commissioner, or in which the order of the Commissioner gives effect to an agreement come to by the parties: Provided further that no appeal by an employer under clause (a) shall lie unless the memorandum of appeal is accompanied by a certificate by the Commissioner to the effect that the appellant has deposited with him the amount payable under the order appealed against. (2) The period of limitation for an appeal under this section shall be sixty days. (3) The provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963)], shall be applicable to appeals under this section.”

6. The Act of 1923 was enacted to provide payment by certain classes of employers to workman for compensation against injury by accident. The term “accidental injury” is not defined under the Act of 1923 but the same was considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malikarjuna G. Hiremath Vs. The Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. : AIR 2009 SC 2019.

7. Here in this case, the claimant has filed a claim petition under the Act of 1923 against the registered owner who happens to be father of claimant. The Commissioner after recording evidence and considering the grounds has decided the issue in favour of claimant that the accident was result of use of motor vehicle owned by Mohan Lal who happens to be father of claimant. Though there is no document on record to show that the vehicle [2025:RJ-JP:23147] (5 of 6) [CMA-2550/2013] was used for commercial purpose but no objection is raised about violation of insurance policy. The claimant has led its own evidence and no contradictory evidence is filed on record rather with a reasoned order, the factual issues of relationship between claimant and registered owner were found proved by the Commissioner, therefore, this is a question of fact.

8. Similarly on basis of evidence the Commissioner has made assessment of monthly income at ₹6000/- though the claimant has claimed ₹9000/- as per month and on basis of material on record including evidence determined the income as ₹6000/- per month. Again, it is an issue of fact.

9. The Commissioner has taken note of the fact that a Medical Board of three Doctors have issued a certificate Ex.5 which is an authentic document issued by the Authority of Government and assessed the income on basis of evidence. Again, it is an issue of fact.

10. In case of Gottumukkala Appala Narasimha Raju & Ors Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Another (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered a distinction under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and under the Workman’s Compensation Act, 1923. This judgment is not helpful to the appellant. In case of Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti Vs. Prabhakar Maruti Garvali & Anr. (supra), scope of the Workman’s Compensation Act was explained and further scope of Section 30 the Act of 1923 was explained and it was held that a finding of fact arrived at without there being any evidence would give rise to perversity which itself is a substantial question of law. [2025:RJ-JP:23147] (6 of 6) [CMA-2550/2013]

11. Here in this case, there is sufficient evidence on record and on basis of evidence, a conclusion has been drawn, therefore, judgment in case of Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti Vs. Prabhakar Maruti Garvali & Anr. (supra) is not applicable in this case. In case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Mohd. Nasir and Anr. (supra) wherein there was a certificate of 15% disability and the High Court determined compensation as 100% then Hon’ble Supreme Court has set aside the award, but herein there is different fact.

12. Thus, having gone through the judgment and considering the material on record, the reasons were assigned by the Commissioner while making assessment of 25%. Moreover, here in this case, the Board has assessed the disability as 15% whereas the Commissioner has determined compensation based on loss of income of 25%. Again, it is an issue of fact.

13. Here in this case, learned counsel for the appellant has failed to show any ground which gives rise to substantial question of law. Without any substantial question of law, the instant appeal cannot be considered for admission. There is no perversity or illegality in the order passed by the Authority and this appeal is liable to be dismissed.

14. In view of discussion made hereinabove, the instant Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is hereby dismissed with pending application, if any.

15. No order as to costs. MR/119 Supp (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J