Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:90394 Court No. - 2 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 3335 of 2013 Appellant :- The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Respondent :- Smt. Fatma Zahra And 3 Ors. Counsel for Appellant :- Aditya Singh Parihar,Avanish Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- Mohd. Asim Zulfiquar Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The present appeal has been filed against the award dated 17.10.2013 passed by the Commissioner, Employee's Compensation Act/Deputy Labour Commissioner, Moradabad Region, Moradabad in E.C.A. No.66 of 2012, whereby the Commissioner has awarded a compensation of Rs.4,40,625/- for the death of one Mohd. Yameen. 3. Challenging the award, learned counsel for the appellant has made two folds submissions; firstly, he submits that the claim petition was not maintainable as no notice as contemplated under Section 10 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 has been given to the appellant. It is contended that admittedly, in the instant case, the claimants/respondents before instituting the claim petition did not give any notice under Section 10 of the Employee's Compensation Act, and thus, the finding of the Commissioner that since the owner had knowledge about the incident, therefore, there was no necessity for giving notice under Section 10 of the Employee's Compensation Act is based upon misinterpretation of Section 10 of the Employee's Compensation Act and thus, it is liable to be interfered by this Court in its Appellate jurisdiction. 4. He further contends that in the instant case, the Commissioner had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition inasmuch as the incident had taken place at Kashipur Ramnagar and the claimant/respondents are the residents of Sambhal, District Bhimnagar, therefore, no cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Commissioner, Moradabad and thus, the Commissioner has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has contended that proviso to Section 10 of the Employee's Compensation Act contemplates that if the owner has knowledge about the occurrence of the incident, the claimants/respondents are not supposed to send any notice under Section 10 of the Employee's Compensation Act, and thus, the Commissioner has rightly repelled the aforesaid contentions. 6. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the appellant with regard to notice under Section 10 of the Employee's Compensation Act is concerned, this Court may note that proviso (b) of the IVth proviso to Section 10 of the Employee's Compensation Act provides that there would be no bar to entertain the claim petition for want of notice if the owner had knowledge about the incident from any other source at or about the time when it occurred. 7. In the instant case, the Commissioner has categorically recorded a finding that the owner of the offending vehicle had knowledge about the incident. In such view of the fact, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant with regard to want of notice is misconceived since the finding in this respect is a finding of fact based upon proper appreciation of evidence on record. Therefore, in view of said fact, the contention of learned counsel for the appellant in respect of want of notice under Section 10 of the Employee's Compensation Act is misplaced and it is not sustainable. 8. So far as the issue of territorial jurisdiction is concerned, the record reveals that the insurance company has set up plea in the written statement but did not get any issue framed the said issue. 9. Since, no issue was got framed in respect to territorial jurisdiction, and the law is settled that the issue of territorial jurisdiction has to be taken at first instance, therefore, the aforesaid contention is misconceived. 10. Since, the appeal under Section 30 of the Employee's Compensation Act would lie only on substantial question of law and no substantial question of law is involved in the instant appeal which needs to be answered by this Court, therefore, the appeal lacks merit and is dismissed with no order as to costs. Order Date :- 27.5.2025 SSharma Digitally signed by :- SUNIL KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad