North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation v. Smt. Sujatha decided on
Case Details
Court No. - 44 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. 2570 of 2004 Appellant :- National Insurance Co Ltd Respondent :- Smt. Sanno And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Satish Chaturvedi Counsel for Respondent :- Komal Mehrotra Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J. 1. 2. None appears for the appellant-Insurance company. This is an appeal of the year 2004. Perused the record. 3. By way of this appeal, Insurance Company has
Legal Reasoning
challenged the judgment and award dated 23.8.2004 passed by Commissioner under Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 & Assistant Labour Commissioner, Ghaziabad in WCA No.29 of 2001, awarding compensation of Rs. 4,39,900/- with interest at the rate of 12% to the widow of the deceased. 4. On perusal memo of appeal, this Court finds that following substantial questions of law has been framed: (1) Whether in view of the fact that admittedly the accident took place at District Rewari (State of Rajasthan) and there was no averment in the claim application that the claimant was orderly resides at Ghaziabad or that the employer has his registered office at Ghaziabad, the claim application was maintainable before the Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation at Ghaziabad. (2) Whether even though the provisions of Section 10 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 were not satisfied and complied with, was it opened to the learned Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation to have entertained the claim application at all and allowed the claim application without recording any finding about satisfaction of the provisions of Section 10 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923?
Legal Reasoning
(3) Whether for want of impleadment of the owner of the vehicle viz. Shri Girish Kumar Mittal, could the learned Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation has proceeded and decided the claim instead of rejecting the claim application for want of non-impleadment of necessary parties? (4) Whether the learned Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation was bound by correct factor? (5) Whether in view of the admission made by the owner about the income of the deceased it was open for the Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation to have assumed any different income even though the claimant had failed to bring on record any documentary evidence regarding the income? 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 2 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 questions of law framed are the questions of facts and the findings of the Commissioner on the said issues are not perverse. As far as question (d) namely of interest is concerned, the same is answered against the Insurance Company 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. 3 9. Interim relief, if any, shall stand vacated forthwith. The amount be disbursed to the claimant forthwith. Order Date :- 1.12.2022 Irshad Digitally signed by IRSHAD AHMAD SIDDIQUI Date: 2022.12.14 15:42:02 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 4