Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. vs Jyoti Devi & Ors.

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited has filed this appeal questioning Commissioner Workmen's Compensation Act (Assistant Labour

Commissioner), Jammu's award of January 23, 2007 directing the appellant to pay an amount of Rs.3,94,120/ to the respondentsclaimants, as

compensation for the death of Ram Kumar alias Garu Ram, who had been employed as driver by Rahul Gupta, respondent no.5.

Appellant's learned counsel, Mr. Amrit Sareen submitted that the findings recorded by the learned Commissioner that Ram Kumar had died during

the course of his employment as driver with Rahul Gupta, respondent, was perverse, in that, there was no evidence on records to support the

finding. His furthersubmission ....... Insurance Company was not liable to compensate the claimants because the deceased did not have a valid

driving licence at the time when he was driving the insured Car.

Mr. Rajesh Kumar appearing for the claimants, on the other hand, submitted that appellant's appeal is not maintainable as no substantial question

of law arises therein. According to him appreciation of evidence, which the appellant seeks in its appeal, may not be permissible. Learned counsel

submitted that the findings of the Commissioner are based on evidence available on records and well reasoned judgment of the Commissioner may

not require interference in appeal.

Responding to appellant's plea that the deceased did not hold a valid driving licence, learned counsel submitted that the Insurance Company had

failed to produce any evidence before the Commissioner on the basis whereof it may be said that the deceased did not possess a valid driving

licence and in that view of the matter, the findings recorded by the Commissioner cannot be faulted.

I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the Commissioner under Workmen's

Compensation Act, 1923.

It is a settled proposition of law that an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act would be maintainable only if it raises a

substantial question of law. Substantial question of law as Contemplated by Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act carries the same

meaning as is ascribed to the expression ""substantial question of law"" appearing in Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

A question of law, or a substantial question of law, would arise when the same is not dependent upon examination of evidence or on any fresh

investigation of facts. A question of law would, however, arise when the finding is perverse, in that, it was either based on legally impermissible

evidence or on absolutely No evidence.

Appreciation of evidence afresh for taking a view other than the one taken by the Commissioner may not however be permissible in an appeal

under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act which would lie only when a substantial question of law is found to arise in the case.

In order to prove that the deceased had not died during the course of his employment with respondent no.5, the appellantInsurance Company had

produced Rahul Gupta, the person, who had been stated by the claimants to have employed Ram Kumar who had died during the course of his

employment with Rahul Gupta. This witness had categorically stated that Ram Kumar had died during the course of his employment with him.

In this view of the matter, appellant's learned counsel's submission that the statement of the owner had not been properly appreciated by the

Commissioner, may not merit consideration for entertaining Insurance Company's appeal, particularly when no other evidence of any type

whatsoever had been brought on records by the appellant to disprove the claimant's version that Ram Kumar had died during the course of his

employment with respondent no.5.

All that appellant's learned counsel wants is the reappreciation of evidence which the Commissioner had considered while recording his categoric

finding that Ram Kumar had died during the course of his employment with respondent no.5. This course, in my view, is impermissible, as the

appellant cannot wriggle out from the admission that its witness Mr. Rahul Gupta had made during the course of his statement acknowledging that

Ram Kumar had been employed by him as driver with his Car no. JK02N9291.

Appellant's counsel's next submission that the driver of Car no. JK02N9291 did not hold valid driving licence, is not substantiated as no evidence

had been produced by the appellant before the Tribunal to prove the case which it had set up in this behalf.

Findings returned by the Commissioner after appreciation of evidence that the deceased had died during the course of his employment with

respondent no.1 cannot thus be interfered with in the appeal.

Insurance Company's appeal, which does not raise any substantial question of law, is, accordingly, dismissed.