Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:106660 Court No. - 2 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER DEFECTIVE No. - 1170 of 2023 Appellant :- The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Respondent :- Manoj Kumar Hoon And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Arun Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- Baleshwar Chaturvedi Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J. Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No.1 of 2023:- Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. The appeal is reported to be beyond time 16 days. Appellant has filed the present delay condonation application along with affidavit to condone the delay in filing the present appeal. I have perused the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application. Appellant has properly explained the delay in filing the appeal and delay in filing the appeal is bona fide and genuine. Consequently, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal shall be treated to have been filed in time. The Delay Condonation Application No. 1 of 2019 is allowed. Office is directed to allot regular number to the appeal. . Order on Appeal:- 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The insurance company has preferred the present appeal challenging the judgment and award dated 31.07.2023 passed by the Commissioner, Employee's Compensation Act, 1923/Deputy Labour Commissioner, Meerut Region, Meerut in E.C.A. Case No.89 of 2018 whereby the Commissioner has awarded Rs.5,30,409/- as compensation to the claimants/respondents. 3. Challenging the aforesaid award, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the Commissioner has erred in law in holding that there was relationship of employer and employee between the claimant/respondent No.1 and the respondent No.4. It is contended that the Commissioner has erred in law in awarding Rs.4,49,988/- towards medical expenses inasmuch as the medical expenses is not covered under the insurance policy. 4. Be that as it may, the Commissioner while holding the relationship of employer and employee between the claimant/respondent No.1 and the respondent No.4 has placed reliance upon the affidavit of the claimant/respondent No.1. The Commissioner has further placed reliance upon several documents which proved that the claimant/respondent No.1 was employed as Lineman with the respondent No.4. The Commissioner also held on the basis of the evidence on record that the claimant/respondent No.1 suffered injuries during the course of the employment due to which his right leg has been imputed. The finding in regard to the relationship of employer and employee and the injuries suffered by claimant/respondent No.1 during the course of the employment is based upon proper appreciation of evidence on record and does not call for any interference by this Court in its appellate jurisdiction. 5. So far as the question whether the medical expenses are covered under the insurance policy or not is a question of fact and the record reveals that the insurance company did not raise the said point before the Commissioner and in such view of the fact, the aforesaid contention cannot be raised by learned counsel for the appellant for first time in appeal under Section 30 of the Employee's Compensation Act. 6. Since the appeal under Section 30 of Employee's Compensation Act would lie only on substantial question of law and in the present appeal, there is no substantial question of law which calls for adjudication by this Court. Consequently, the appeal lacks merit and is, hereby, dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost. Order Date :- 7.7.2025 SS Digitally signed by :- SUNIL KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad