[2025:RJ-JP:17515] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2143/2016 HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd., having it's local office 406, ludhiya tower, ashok marg, c-scheme, jaipur having its regional office at N-22, second floor, sector-18, noida-201301 through its constituted attorney ----non-claimant/Appellant Versus 1.Smt. Sarita Kanwar w/o late rajveer singh, aged about 22 years 2. Rajkanwar w/o harisingh, aged about 52 years, 3. Harisingh s/o bhanwar singh, aged about 54 years, r/o village mundwada, tehsil dhod, district sikar (raj.) ----claimants/Respondents 4. Ranveer singh s/o ishwar ram, r/o village kadma ka bas tehsil dhod, district sikar (raj.) (Registered owner of Jeep No.RJ-19-C- 8619) ---non-claimant/respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Virendra Agrawal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinay Mathur HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 24/04/2025 1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter to be referred as "Insurance Company") assailing the impugned judgment dated 28.03.2016 passed by Employees Compensation Commissioner, Sikar (hereinafter to be referred as "learned Commissioner") in claim case No.WCCF 9/2014 titled as "Smt. Sarika Kanwar & Ors. Vs. Ranveer Singh & Ors." 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the [2025:RJ-JP:17515] (2 of 8) [CMA-2143/2016] deceased Rajveer was employee as a driver of the vehicle bearing No.RJ-19-C-8619, the said vehicle was owned by Ranveer Singh and was insured by HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company on 08.07.2013. Rajveer was going on the Vehicle bearing No. RJ-19- C-8619 in the capacity of driver from village Khud to bring fodder and Urea along with Devilal when they reach near the village, Rajveer singh had fallen sick and asked devilal to drive the Jeep and requested him to take him to the hospital while they were returning back after taking the medicine, the jeep met with an accident near Kalero ki dhani and due to above mentioned accident Rajveer sustained grievous injury and later on died. At the time of accident, Rajveer was about 22 years old and working as a driver of the vehicle owned by Ranveer Singh and Ranveer Singh used to give him salary of Rs.8,000/- with daily allowance etc. Because of his death, due to injury, sustained during the course of employment, the claimant claim compensation of Rs.8,95,400/- under the provisions of Section 3(1) read with Section 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, now amended as the Employees' Compensation Act, 2022. 3. Respondent No.1-Ranveer Singh filed reply to the said petition through his counsel, admitting that the deceased-Rajveer was employed by him and his death occurred during the course of his employment. 4. Respondent No.2–Insurance Company also appeared through counsel and filed a reply to the claim petition, refuting the averments made therein. The Insurance Company contended that there was a discrepancy between the FIR lodged and the claim petition. The Insurance Company further disputed the existence of [2025:RJ-JP:17515] (3 of 8) [CMA-2143/2016] an employer-employee relationship between Rajveer and Ranveer singh. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned Workmen's Compensation Commissioner framed the following issues: 1- vk;k fd e`rd jktohj flag fnukad 08-07-2013 dks vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 ds okgu la[;k vkj-ts-&19&lh&8619 ij pkyd ds :i esa fu;ksftr Fkk ,oa fu;kstu ds nkSjku] dkj.k o le; ?kfVr nq?kZVuk esa vkbZ pksVksa ds dkj.k e`R;q dks izkIr gqvk \ 2- vk;k fd e`rd jktohj flag ds okgu Lokeh }kjk 8000@&:i;s ekfld osru fn;k tkrk Fkk o mldh ojoDr nq?kZVuk vk;q 22 o"kZ Fkh \ 3- D;k chek daiuh dh 'krksZ dk mYya?ku gqvk gS rFkk bldk chek daiuh ds {kfriwfrZ o C;kt vnk;xh ds nkf;Ro ij D;k izHkko gksxk \ 4- D;k oDr nq?kZVuk fu;ekuqlkj dsoy izkFkhZx.k gh e`rd ds vkfJr Fks \ 5- vuqrks"k \ 6. Thereafter, to substantiate the averments made in the claim petition, the claimant examined Harisingh as AW-1 and submitted documentary evidence marked as Ex.1 to 9. On the contrary, the Insurance Company examined witness Shri Nitin Kumar as NAW-1 and documentary evidence marked as Ex.NA-1 was also produced in order to prove their defence and produced following documents. 7. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Commissioner decided Issue Nos.1 to 3 in favour of the claimants and awarded a claim of Rs.7,74,795/- along with the interest at the rate of 12% per annum with Rs.5,000/- of funeral expenses. While deciding the claim, the learned Commissioner gave a clear finding that the Insurance Company had failed to establish any breach of policy conditions. [2025:RJ-JP:17515] (4 of 8) [CMA-2143/2016] 8. Being aggrieved by this award, the Insurance Company has assailed the impugned order. 9. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant- Insurance Company is that in the FIR (Exhibit-1), deceased was not mentioned as the driver but as an occupant of the Jeep, which was allegedly being driven by one Devilal. Therefore, it was submitted that the relationship between the employee and employer (between the deceased-Rajveer and the Ranveer Singh) was not proven and as such, the claim petition under the Workmen's Compensation Act was not maintainable. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company argued that since the deceased-Rajveer was not driving the vehicle but was merely an occupant, it could not be said that the death occurred during the course of employment or that the manner of the accident had any nexus with the nature of his employment. Learned counsel for the appellant also urged that neither the deceased was employed as driver at the time of accident nor did the death occur during the course of employment. Hence, the impugned award is liable to be set aside. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants supported the judgment and submitted that the employer has admitted the existence of employer-employee relationship between the deceased and himself. Furthermore, it was proved on record that the deceased was a driver and sustained injuries during the course of his employment. He further submitted that the learned Workmen's Compensation Commissioner had given a clear finding that the deceased Rajveer was working as a driver under the employment of Ranveer Singh and the findings recorded in the [2025:RJ-JP:17515] (5 of 8) [CMA-2143/2016] judgment were based on a sound appreciation of the evidence and were not liable to be disbursed by this Court. He further submits that the scope of appeal under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act is very limited and prayed for the dismissal of the appeal. 11. Having heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available on record. 12. The questions raised by learned counsel for the Insurance Company are essentially questions of fact. In the present case, the learned Commissioner has recorded a categorical finding that the deceased Rajveer sustained bodily injuries and died during the course of his employment. The learned commissioner also categorically observed that the relationship between the deceased Rajveer and Ranveer is well established from the reply submitted to the claim petition as well as from the contents of Exhibit-A.4 which are reproduced herein: ^^fnukad& 08-07-2013 dks esjh xkMh ij fu;fer pkyd jktohj fu;qdr Fkk tks esjh xkMh dks esjs [ksr esa nsus ds fy;s [kkr ds dVs ykus [kqM+ x;k FkkA tgka r;chr [kjkc gksus ij xkMh dks vius ifjfpr nsohyky] NksVh vkSj jktohj MjkbZoj ds cxy dh lhV ij vkjke dj jgk FkkA ckMyokl ds ikl okil vkrs le; nsohyky esjh thi dks pykdj ,DlhMsaV dj fn;kA** 13. In the opinion of this court, the learned Commissioner is the final authority of facts. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Gola Rajanna Etc. V s. The Divisional Manager and Anr. reported in 2017(1) SCC 45 and North East Karnataka Transport Corporation Vs. Smt. Sujatha reported in 2019 (11) SCC 514 held that a finding of fact cannot be re- [2025:RJ-JP:17515] (6 of 8) [CMA-2143/2016] appreciated, while deciding the appeal against the award passed by the learned Commissioner is not maintainable, if any substantial question of law is not involved. 14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Golla Rajanna (supra). It has been held in Para No. 8 & 10 as under: “8. Section 30 of the Act provides for appeal to the High Court. To the extent, the provision reads as follows; 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 sum whether 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-monthly payment; (c) an order providing for the distribution of compensation among 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 the amount of an indemnity under the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 12; or (e) an order refusing to register a memorandum of agreement 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 (Emphasis supplied) 15. 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 question of law, being a welfare legislation. [2025:RJ-JP:17515] (7 of 8) [CMA-2143/2016] 16. The similar view has been expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sujatha (supra). It has specifically held in Para Nos. 9 to 12 as under: "9. At the outset, we may take note of the fact, being a settled principle, that the question as to whether the employee met with an accident, whether the accident occurred during the course of employment, whether it arose out of an employment, how and in what manner the accident occurred, who was negligent in causing the accident, whether there existed any relationship of employee and employer, what was the age and monthly salary of the employee, how many are the dependants of the deceased employee, the extent of disability caused to the employee due to injuries suffered in an accident, whether there was any insurance coverage obtained by the employer to cover the incident etc. are some of the material issues which arise for the just decision of the Commissioner in a claim petition when an employee suffers any bodily injury or dies during the course of his employment and he/his LRs sue(s) his employer to claim compensation under the Act. 10. The aforementioned questions are essentially the questions of fact and, therefore, they are required to be proved with the aid of evidence. Once they are proved either way, the findings recorded thereon are regarded as the findings of fact. 11. The appeal provided under Section 30 of the Act to the High Court against the order of the Commissioner lies only against the specific orders set out in clauses (a) to (e) of Section 30 of the Act with a further rider contained in the first proviso to the section that the appeal must involve substantial questions of law. 12. In other words, the appeal provided under Section 30 of the Act to the High Court against the order of the Commissioner is not like a regular first appeal akin to section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which can he heard both on facts and law. The appellate jurisdiction of the High Court to decide the appeal is confined only to examine the substantial questions of law arising in the case." 17. In "Smt. Ram Sakhi Devi v. Chhatra Devi", reported in JT 2005 (6) SC 167, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that without formulating substantial question of law appeal cannot be sustained. 18. In "M/s Krishna Weaving Mills, Ajmer v. Smt. Chandra [2025:RJ-JP:17515] (8 of 8) [CMA-2143/2016] Bhaga Devi wife of Mool Chand & Anr.", reported in 1985 (1) WLN 455, this Court while dealing with Workmen's Compensation Act has laid down law that unless there is a question of public importance or the substantial question of law is involve, the appeal under the Workmen's Compensation Act cannot be entertained. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows:- "8. Moreover, under section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act only substantial question of law can be agitated. In the present case, I am convinced that there is no substantial question of law involved. 9. The question of public importance and question on which no final interpretation is available are known as substantial question of law. Even if this definition is further extended, it will have to bear in mind that there is vast difference between the question of law and substantial question of law. It is only when the question of law is not well settled and it is of importance, it would become a substantial questions of law." 19. Looking at the facts and circumstance of the case, this court finds no good reason to interfere with the factual findings recorded by the learned Workmen's Compensation Commissioner. None of the factual findings are found to be either perverse, arbitrary or based on no evidence. This Court accordingly upholds these findings. Since the present appeal does not involve any substantial question of law, which is a prerequisite under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, therefore, no interference is warranted in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. 20. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. All pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J Seema/122