High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 44 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2573 of 2003
Legal Reasoning
Appellant :- The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Respondent :- Smt. Shanti Devi And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Amresh Sinha Counsel for Respondent :- V.K. Nagaich Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J. 1.Heard Shri Anubhav Sinha, learned Advocate has appeared for Shri Amresh Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Shri V. K. Nagaich, learned counsel for the respondent- original claimant. 2. By way of this appeal, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. has challenged the judgment and award dated 31.07.2003 passed by Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Bareilly in Case No.W.C.A. 90 of 2002 (Smt. Shanti Devi and another Vs. Hanif and another) of Rs. 2,03,562 to the kin of the deceased. 3. The brief facts of the case are: On the fateful day, the deceased was employed as a helper, he met with a fatal accident and this was one of the reasons for challenging the award by the insurance company as according to the insurance company, the deceased was not employee of the owner of truck and the accident in which the deceased died did not take place during course of his employment. It further submitted that the compensation awarded is on the heir's side. The substantial question of law framed by the insurance company reads as follows: "(a) Whether the Court below was justified in holding the appellant- company liable for payment of compensation in respect of a person who was not an employee of the owner of the vehicle insured by the appellant- company and who expired due to accident caused by an unknown vehicle?." 4. The facts as culled out from the record and the judgement are: Natthu was employed by the driver as the another helper had absented himself and when the vehicle reached on 7.12.2000, Jakeel Ahmad had employed him. The accident occurred when the vehicle in which the deceased was travelling dashed with an unknown car from behind. The FIR was registered by the driver Jakeel Ahmad. The deceased left behind him the mother and sister. They were totally dependent on the deceased. On summons being issued, the owner appeared and contended that it is not in his knowledge whether the driver had appointed the cleaner or not. The respondent no. 1, the owner of the truck did not file any reply. The insurance company, thereafter, filed its reply and even the owner filed his reply. Thereafter, it was a categorical statement of the deceased that the family members are the deceased that the driver took the deceased with him and he was getting Rs. 2,000 per month. The FIR and postmortem report also show that the deceased died due to accidental injuries. Six issues were framed and they were all on facts. The factual data that the deceased was employed cannot said to be perverse and the insurance company nor the owner did not lead any evidence and the finding of the fact that the driver employed the deceased has not been proved to be false. No other ground is raised, this being factual data, the submission of learned counsel for the respondent is accepted. 5. 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." 6. 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." 7. As far as present appeal is concerned, the so called substantial question of law framed is the questions of fact and the findings of the Commissioner on the said issues are not perverse. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Case (Supra). In Golla Rajanna Etc. Etc. Vs. Divisional Manager and Another, 2017 (1) TAC 259 (SC) also it has been held that under Section 30, the High Court cannot enter into the arena of facts unless they are proved to be perverse. 8. In view of the above, the appeal fails and is dismissed. The so 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 amount be disbursed to the claimant forthwith. Order Date :- 5.1.2023 Mohit, Imtiyaz Digitally signed by :- MOHIT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad