North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation v. Smt. Sujatha decided on
Legal Reasoning
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 614 of 1999 Appellant :- The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Alld. Respondent :- Smt. Ram Rati And And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Amaresh Sinha Counsel for Respondent :- D K Tiwari, ,Manoj Kumar Singh Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard Sri Amresh Sinha, 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 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. has challenged the judgment and award dated 214.1999 passed by Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Meerut in W.C. Case No.27 of 1998 awarding compensation of Rs.2,26,380/- 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 : "Whether the Court below was justified in allowing the claim petition against the Insurance Company in respect of deceased person who was not an employee of the Insured owner of the offending Bus" 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 conductor in Bus No. DL/P 8974 of M/s Thakkar & Co who on 17.7.1997 died due the injuries sustained in the vehicular accident. The F.I.R. was lodged by a person who was running a tea shop at the place of incident who in the complaint had alleged that on the fateful day, the deceased who as conductor of the bus fell down from the bus due to rash and negligent driving of the driver. The owner and the Insurance Company though had denied the employment of the deceased but could not dislodge the version of the informant before the learned commissioner by leading/producing cogent evidence though ample opportunity was given to them by the learned Commissioner. They could not even prove the deceased to be passenger of the bus as no ticket etc. was placed on record. Hence, the learned Commissioner has come to the conclusion that the deceased was travelling on the bus in the capacity of conductor. Be that as it may, 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 :- 2.12.2022 DKS Digitally signed by DEEPAK KUMAR SRIVASTWA Date: 2022.12.20 15:47:25 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad