[2025:RJ-JP:17959] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1228/2010 The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Nehru Place, Tonk Road, Jaipur. ----Non-Applicant-Appellant Versus 1. Mohan Lal S/o Dhanna Ram, R/o Gokulpura, Tehsil & District Sikar, (Raj.). ----Claimant/Respondent 2. Jeevan Ram S/o Bhagwanaram, R/o Trilokpura, Tehsil Dantaramgarh, District Sikar (Rajasthan) ----Non-Claimant/Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singhal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ashir Gauri for Mr. Ripu Daman Singh Naruka HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 29/04/2025 MANEESH SHARMA, J (ORAL): 1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 on behalf of the appellant- Insurance Company against the judgment and award dated 08.03.2010 passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Sikar, Rajasthan (hereinafter referred as 'the Commissioner') in case No. WCCNF 14/2005, whereby the claim petition is allowed and compensation of Rs.2,30,948/- in the name of the claimant-respondent No.1 was awarded. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 02.05.2005, the respondent No.1 filed a claim petition before learned Commissioner with regard to the injuries sustained by him in an accident occurred on 12.04.2005. In the claim petition, it was stated that the claimant was working as labour and Khallasi and while threshing the wheat in the agriculture field of Ramlal Jakhar, [2025:RJ-JP:17959] (2 of 4) [CMA-1228/2010] his right hand was amputed. It was submitted that when the accident was occurred he was working under the employment of respondent No.2 Jeevan Ram (Owner of the tractor) and claimed for compensation. 3. That the respondent No.2 filed reply to the claim petition and supported the version of the claimant and contended that since the vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company as such the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. 4. That the Insurance Company also filed reply to the claim petition and refuted the arguments of the claim petition and took specific objections that no premium was charged to cover the risk of the claimant, thus, the Insurance Company is not liable to make payment of compensation. It was further contended that the injured was not travelling as labour over the tractor and sustained injuries are not related to his course of employment. 5. On the basis of which, learned counsel for claimant raised following issues:- 1- vk;k izkFkhZ&vizkFkhZ la[;k&1 ds okgu VzsDVj ua- vkjts&23&vkj&7658 ij crkSj [kyklh o Jfed dk;Zjr FkkA fu;kstu ds nkSjku o fu;kstu ds dkj.k fnukad 12-04-2005 dks 11-00 ,-,e- ij ?kfVr gqbZ nq?kZVuk esa izkFkhZ dk nkfguk gkFk dksguh ds ikl ls dV x;k] ftlds ifj.kkeLo:i vkosnd LFkk;h :i ls dk;Z djus ds vk;ksX; gks x;k gSA 2- vk;k izkFkhZ osru Lo:i vizkFkhZ la[;k&1 ls 2500@&:i;s ekfld osru o 50@&:i;s nSfud [kpkZ izkIr djrk FkkA 3- vk;k vizkFkhZ la[;k&2 chek daiuh }kjk mBkbZ xbZ vkifRr;ksa ds vk/kkj ij {kfriwfrZ gsrq mRrjnk;h ugha gSA 4- vk;k izkFkhZ {kfriwfrZ jkf'k ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS ;fn gka rks fdruh jkf'k o fdl&fdl lsA 5- vuqrks"k \ 6. In order to substantiate the averments of claim, the claimant examined himself as AW-1 and produced the documents. [2025:RJ-JP:17959] (3 of 4) [CMA-1228/2010] 7. On the contrary, the appellant- Insurance Company examined NAW-1 Gulab Singh Shekhawat and produced the documents. 8. Learned Commissioner after hearing arguments of the parties, awarded compensation of Rs.2,30,948/- along with interest @ 9 % p.a. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. That the contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the claimant has failed to prove that he was working as a labour over the tractor and while working under the employment of the owner of the vehicle, he sustained injuries. It was further contended that in absence of such evidence, the Insurance Company is not liable to make payment of compensation. 11. On the contrary, learned counsel for the claimant supported the impugned award and submits that the impugned order is based on sound appreciation of pleadings and the evidence, therefore, no interference is required. 12. Learned counsel for the claimant submits that the contention of appellant that the claimant has failed to prove the fact that he was working as a labour on the tractor and sustained injuries during course of employment which is not proved. The said contention of the appellant is purely question of fact and the learned Commissioiner has recorded a specific finding in this behalf in favour of the claimant. 13. It is well settled law that scope of appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 is very restricted and confined to the substantial question of law involved in the case. [2025:RJ-JP:17959] (4 of 4) [CMA-1228/2010] 14. A bare perusal of proposed substantial question of law in the memo of appeal, reflects that all the questions of law so raised are question of fact. 15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of "Golla Rajanna Etc. v. The Divisional Manager And Anr." reported in 2017 (1) SCC 45 and "North East Karnataka Transport Corporation v. Smt. Sujatha" reported in 2019 (11) SCC 514, held that the finding of fact cannot be re-appreciated while deciding the appeal against the award and the appeal filed against the award passed by the learned Commissioner is not entertainable if any substantial question of law is not involved. 16. Having gone through the findings of the Commissioner I am of the view that the findings recorded by the learned Commissioner are based on sound appreciation of evidence and there is no substantial questions of law involved in the present appeal and the question so raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is question of fact regarding which the final authority is Commissioner, who has recorded finding against the appellant. 17. In view of this discussion made hereinabove there is no perversity found in the impugned order, therefore, the present appeal fails and same is hereby dismissed. 18. Any other pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J DEEPA RANI -43