North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation v. Smt. Sujatha decided on
Case Details
Court No. - 44 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1431 of 2002 Appellant :- The New India Assurance Co. Ltd Respondent :- Smt Raeesa Begum And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Kuldip Shanker Amist Counsel for Respondent :- K.K. Rathore,K. Rathore,S.S. Rathore Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard Sri Arun Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant and perused the memo of appeal. None has appeared for the respondents even in the revised call. 2. By way of this appeal, the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. has challenged the judgment and award dated 13.6.2002 passed by Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Kanpur in W.C. Case No.01 of 1999 awarding compensation of Rs.1,73,528/- with interest at the rate of 12% to the respondent-claimants. 3. The appellant-Insurance Company has challenged the impugned judgment on the following substantial questions of law : "(i) Whether the claim petition could proceed after the death of the mother of the deceased who was the only legal heir of the deceased and was entitled for compensation? (ii) Whether the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner could allow compensation without examining and giving finding as to who was the legal heir of the deceased and whether he or she was entitled for any amount of compensation? (iii) Whether the finding of the Workmen Compensation Commissioner regarding Raessa Begum being the wife of the deceased was perverse? (iv) Whether in the absence of the oral evidence of eye witness, who was not produced, the finding of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner regarding accident by the truck UP 77/3585 and death of Nasir Ali during the course of employment was perverse? (v) Whether without any succession certificate, the compensation could be allowed for payment after production of succession certificate? (vi) Whether the amount of compensation was allowed as per provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act? 4. At the outset, it is relevant to discuss the scope of this Court to entertain appeal against the award of Workmen's Compensation Commissioner. The Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.7470 of 2009 North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs. Smt. Sujatha decided on 2.11.2018 has held 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 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 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 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. 10. The aforementioned questions are 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 findings of fact." 5. The Apex Court further went on to hold as under : "15. Such appeal is then heard on the question of admission with a view to find out as to whether it involves any substantial question of law or not. Whether the appeal involves a substantial question of law or not depends upon the facts of each case and needs an examination by the High Court. If the substantial question of law arises, the High Court would admit the appeal for final hearing on merit else would dismiss in limini with reasons that it does not involve any substantial question/s of law. 16. Now coming to the facts of this case, we find that the appeal before the High Court did not involve any substantial question of law on the material questions set out above. In other words, in our view, the Commissioner decided all the material questions arising in the case properly on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties and rightly determined the compensation payable to the respondent. It was, therefore, rightly affirmed by the High Court on facts.
Decision
17. In this view of the matter, the findings being concurrent findings of fact of the two courts below are binding on this Court. Even otherwise, we 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. We accordingly uphold these findings." 6. As far as present appeal is concerned, the deceased was employed as cleaner in truck No. UP 77-3585. He died in a vehicular accident on 21.12.1997 under P.S. Khadaura Bedi Ghat, Jalaun. There is no dispute with regard to employment of the deceased. The claim petition was preferred by the the mother of the deceased who died during the the pendency of the petition. Later on, the wife of the deceased was impleaded. It was contended by the Insurance Company that after the death of mother of deceased, no one is dependent on the deceased who can claim compensation and as the widow of the deceased had obtained divorce and thereofore was no longer dependent on the deceased and was not entitled for compensation. This fact was denied by the widow of the deceased and she told that she had not taken divorce nor she performed second marriage and due to exploitation of brothers of the deceased, she had left the matrimonial home. These all are finding of facts which have been ascertained before the learned Commissioner and, therefore, the substantial questions of law framed above, cannot be said to be in the realm of questions of law. Moreover, the findings of the Commissioner on the said issues are not perverse. 7. In Golla Rajanna Etc. Etc. Vs. Divisional Manager and Another, 2017 (1) TAC 259 (SC) & Mayan vs. Mustafa and another, 2022 ACJ 524 also, the Apex Court has held that under Section 30 of Workmen Compensation Act, the High Court cannot enter into the arena of facts unless they are proved to be perverse and the Court cannot interfere unless there is a question of law involved. The decision in Salim vs. New India Assurance. Co. Ltd. and another, 2022 ACJ 526 also will not permit this Court to interfere with the well reasoned judgment of learned Commissioner. 8. In view of the above, the appeal fails and is dismissed. The show called questions of law framed by the Insurance Company are answered against it. In fact the substantial questions of law raised are the questions of fact. 9. Interim relief, if any, shall stand vacated forthwith. The Registry will forward this order to the Workmen Compensation Commissioner who shall immediately summon the claimants and disburse the amount kept in fixed deposit with interest accrued on the said amount till date within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, if the amount has not already been deposited. Order Date :- 1.12.2022 DKS Digitally signed by DEEPAK KUMAR SRIVASTWA Date: 2022.12.13 17:48:22 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad