United India Insurance Company Ltd @APPELLANT@Hash Smt. Bassi

The present misc. appeal is preferred under Section 30 (aa) of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 against the impugned judgment dated

17.04.2018 passed by learned Commissioner Employees Compensation, Bharatpur in Claim Case No. ECA (F)/D54/2015) (Smt. Bassi And Ors. vs.

Rafiq Khan And Anr.) whereby the claim petition filed by the respondents- claimants was partly allowed and compensation in the tune of Rs.

8,85,480/- along with interest @ 12% p.a. has been awarded in favour of the respondents- claimants.

The brief facts of the case are that respondents- claimants filed claim petition stating therein that deceased Shaukeen was employed as workman/

employee with the non- claimant No. 1, who was owner of the dumper bearing registration No. RJ-05-GB0154. On 08.10.2013 deceased alongwith

non- claimant No.- 1 reached near Shiv Grade Nangla Shahjad to vacate the dumper from stones. Since, dumper was being unloaded, a nut of the

dumper broke down and the stones fallen on the head and chest of the deceased. After the incident, deceased was taken to Community Centre

Pahadi, where from he was referred to SMS Hospital, Jaipur but family members of deceased shifted him to Saniya Hospital, Alwar where he

remained hospitalized for 15 days and on 22.11.2013 during course of treatment he succumbed to the injuries. It was pleaded that at the time of

incident the age of deceased was 23 years and he was getting Rs. 8,000/- per month.

In reply, non- claimant No. 1 admitted the employment, wages of the deceased and the alleged incident.

Non- claimant No.- 2 Insurance Company filed reply and denied most of the averments of the claim petition. It was averred that the deceased did not

die during the course of employment, information regarding accident was also not given and FIR was lodged on 10.01.2014 i.e. after delay of three

months, for which no reasonable explanation was given, therefore it seems that the story of accident is concocted one and there is collusion of the

claimants with the non- claimant No.- 1 and false claim is filed.

Thereafter, after recording evidence and hearing, learned Commissioner partly allowed the claim petition for Rs. 8,85,480/along with interest @ 12%

p.a. from 23.12.2013, against which this misc. appeal under Section 30 (aa) of the Employees Compensation Act is filed by the appellant- Insurance

Company.

Mr. Tripurari Sharma learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant- Insurance Company submits that FIR itself was lodged after three months and

there is collusion between the owner and claimants. He further submits that no postmortem was conducted of the deceased. Without considering all

these facts, learned Commissioner wrongly allowed the claim petition, therefore this misc. appeal may be allowed and the impugned judgment may be

quashed and set aside.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant- Insurance Company and perused the impugned judgment.

From the perusal of impugned judgment, it reveals that appellant- Insurance Company has not adduced any evidence before the learned Commissioner

to rebut the case of respondents- claimants.

Section 30 of the Act provides for appeals to the High Court.

To the extent, the provision reads as follow :-

 “30. Appeals.-(1) An appeal shall lie to the High Court from the following orders of a Commissioner, namely:-

(a) an order awarding as compensation a lump sumwhether by way of redemption of a half-monthly payment or otherwise or disallowing a claim in

full or in part for a lump sum;

[(aa) an order awarding interest or penalty under section 4A;]

(b) an order refusing to allow redemption of a half- monthlypayment;

(c) an order providing for the distribution of compensationamong the dependants of a deceased workman, or disallowing any claim of a person alleging

himself to be such dependant;

(d) an order allowing or disallowing any claim for theamount of an indemnity under the provisions of subsection (2) of section 12; or

(e) an order refusing to register a memorandum ofagreement or registering the same or providing for the registration of the same subject to conditions:

Provided that no appeal shall lie against any order unless a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal and, in the case of an order other

than an order such as is referred to in clause (b), unless the amount in dispute in the appeal is not less than three hundred rupees:â€​

From the perusal of aforesaid provision, it reveals that appeal can be filed only when the substantial question of law arises. The factum of accident

and conducting or not conducting postmortem report is a matter of fact, which cannot come in the purview of substantial question of law.

In the matter of Golla Rajanna Etc. Etc. vs. The Divisional Manager And Another, Etc. Etc. reported in 2017 (1) SCC 45, Hon’ble Supreme

Court held that :-

“Under the scheme of the Act, the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner is the last authority on facts. The Parliament has thought it fit to

restrict the scope of the appeal only to substantial questions of law, being a welfare legislation. Unfortunately, the High Court has missed this crucial

question of limited jurisdiction and has ventured to re-appreciate the evidence and recorded its own findings on percentage of disability for which also

there is no basis. The whole exercise made by the High Court is not within the competence of the High Court under Section 30 of the Act.â€​

In the case in hand, since the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant- Insurance Company relates to facts and according to the

aforesaid judgment, the Workmen Compensation Commissioner is the last authority on facts.

In view of it, no substantial question of law arises, therefore this misc. appeal devoids merit which is hereby dismissed.