S.B.I. General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. Raju Devi

Smt. Raju Devi W/o Late Shri Omprakash, aged about 22 years, R/o Village Tatera, Via Chhapuda, Teh. Neemkathana, Distt. Sikar

#2. Smt. Munni Devi W/o Shri Jagdish Prasad, aged about 60 years, R/o Village Tatera, Via Chhapuda, Teh. Neemkathana, Distt. Sikar

#3. Ramkaran Gurjar S/o Shri Maliram, R/o Bidara, Teh. Shahpura, Distt. Jaipur ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Virendra Agrawal, Adv. Ms. Anjali Assat, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gagan Sharma, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS Judgment / Order 25/03/2026 vihykFkhZ&chek dEiuh dh vksj ls ;g vihy /kkjk 30 deZdkj {kfriwfrZ vf/kfu;e] 1923 ¼vkxs ^^vf/kfu;e&1923^^ dgk tkosxk½ ds rgr fo}ku U;k;ky; vk; qDr deZpkjh {kfriwfrZ vf/kfu;e] t;iqj ftyk&f}rh; t;iqj }kjk izdj.k E.C.C.F. No. 18/2015 esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 05-10-2017 ls O;fFkr gksdj is'k dh gS ftlds ek/;e ls e`rd vkseizdk'k dh iRuh o ekrk&firk vFkkZr nkosnkjksa dks dqy 6]64]110@& :i;s e; 12 izfr'kr C;kt lfgr izfrdj fnyk;k gSA [2026:RJ-JP:12544] (2 of 4) [CMA-6383/2017] fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykFkhZ&chek dEiuh dk fuosnu gS fd e`rd izR;FkhZ dze&1 ds ;gka nq?kZVuk ds le; fu; ksftr gks] bl laca/k esa i=koyh ij dksbZ lk{; ugha gS] dfFkr nq?kZVuk dh jkstukepk fjiksVZ ?kVuk ds djhc ,d ekg i'pkr fnukad 09-05-2015 dks ntZ djkbZ gS tks fo'oluh; ugha gSA vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa chfer okgu ls nq?kZVuk gksus dk rF; izekf.kr ugha gS vkSj bl vk/kkj ij vihyk/khu fu.kZ; vikLr fd;s tkus dk fuosnu fd; kA blds foijhr fo}ku vf/koDrk izR;FkhZ&nkosnkjksa dk fuosnu gS fd vihykFkhZ&chek dEiuh }kjk yh x;h vkifRr;ka rF;ksa ls lacaf/kr gSa] ftu ij fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk miyC/k lkexzh ij fopkj djus ds mijkUr fu.kZ; ikfjr fd;k gSA ^^vf/kfu;e&1923^^ dh /kkjk&30 ds izko/kkuksa ds vuqlkj fof/k dk lkjoku iz'u vUroZfyr gksus ij gh ;g vihy iks"k.kh; gS] pwafd bl ekeys esa fof/k dk dksbZ lkjoku iz'u vUroZfyr ugha gS] vr% ^^vf/kfu;e&1923^^ dh /kkjk&30 ds izko/kku rFkk ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs. Smt. Sujatha (2019) 11 SCC 514 esa izfrikfnr O;oLFkk ds vuqlkj ;g vihy iks"k.kh; ugha gSA ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs. Smt. Sujatha (Supra) ds lqlaxr iSjk la[;k&9] 10] 11 rFkk 12 fuEukuqlkj gS&

#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 dependents 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 [2026:RJ-JP:12544] (3 of 4) [CMA-6383/2017] 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. The afore-mentioned questions are 10. essentially the questions of fact and, therefore, they are required to be proved 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 lie only against the specific orders set out in clause (a) to (e) of Section 30 of the Act with a further rider contained in first proviso to the Section that the appeal must involve substantial question 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 be 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. mijksDr fu.kZ; esa izfrikfnr fof/kd O;oLFkk rFkk vf/kfu;e&1923 dh /kkjk 30 ds izko/kkuksa ds vuqlkj Li"V gS fd fof/k dk lkjoku iz'u vUroZfyr gksus ij gh vihy lquokbZ gsrq xzg.k dh tk ldrh gSA orZeku ekeys esa ;|fi jkstukepk fjiksVZ djhc 28 fnu ds i'pkr e`rd ds HkkbZ }kjk ntZ djk;h x;h gS] ysfdu iksLVekVZe fjiksVZ] QnZ iapk; rukek yk'k o vU; nLrkostksa ls e`rd dh okgu nq?kZVuk esa lMd ij nq?kZVukxzLr gksuk izdV gqvk gS] e`rd dh iRuh izkFkhZ;k jktwnsoh }kjk viuh lk{; esa ;g dFku fd;k gS fd e`rd] jkedj.k ds ;gka pkyd ds :i esa fu; ksftr Fkk vkSj fu; kstudky ds nkSjku ;g nq?kZVuk gqbZ gSA fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; us nksuksa i{kksa dh lk{; ij fopkj djus ds mijkUr vihyk/khu fu.kZ; ikfjr fd;k gS] fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk i=koyh ij miyC/k egRoiw.kZ lk{; dks utjvankt dj viuk [2026:RJ-JP:12544] (4 of 4) [CMA-6383/2017] fu"d"kZ fn;k gks vFkok tks rF; vfHkys[k ij Fks gh ugha] mu ij fopkj djus ds mijkUr euekuk fu.kZ; fn;k gks] ,slh fLFkfr vfHkys[k ij ugha gSA mijksDr ifjfLFkfr; ksa esa fof/k dk dksbZ lkjoku iz'u bl ekeys esa vUroZfyr ugha gS] bl izdkj U;kf;d fu.kZ; North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation ¼iwoksZDr½ esa izfrikfnr O;oLFkk rFkk vf/kfu;e&1923 dh /kkjk&30 ds vuqlkj ;g vihy iks"k.kh; ugha gksus ls [kkfjt gksus ;ksX; gSA rnuqlkj vihyk/khu fu.kZ; fnukad 05-10-2017 dh iqf"V djrs gq, ;g vihy [kkfjt dh tkrh gSaA fopkj.k U;k;ky; dk vfHkys[k ;fn izkIr gks j[kk gS rks bl vkns'k dh izfr ds lkFk fopkj.k U;k;ky; dks izsf"kr fd;k tkosA Mittal /12 (UMA SHANKER VYAS),J