[2025:RJ-JP:29407] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4710/2016 1. Smt. Santosh Yadav W/o Late Shri Boduram Yadav Ahir, R/o Kuchchawali Dhani, Gram - Malikpur, Tehsil - Fhulera, Sambhar, District Jaipur 2. Mukesh S/o Late Shri Boduram Ahir, R/o Kuchchawali Dhani, Gram - Malikpur, Tehsil - Fhulera, Sambhar, District Jaipur 3. Kumari Suneeta D/o Late Shri Boduram Ahir Minor, R/o Kuchchawali Dhani, Gram - Malikpur, Tehsil - Fhulera, Sambhar, District Jaipur 4. Ku. Mamta D/o Late Shri Boduram Minor Appellants No. 3 And 4 Are Minor Through Their Natural Guardian, R/o Kuchchawali Dhani, Gram - Malikpur, Tehsil - Fhulera, Sambhar, District Jaipur 5. Smt. Manphool Devi W/o Late Shri Motiram Yadav, R/o Kuchchawali Dhani, Gram - Malikpur, Tehsil - Fhulera, Sambhar, District Jaipur ----Claimant/Appellants Versus 1. Radheyshyam Ola S/o Shri Heeralal, R/o Gram 80, Bhabhu Ola Ki Dhani, Mohanpura, Tehsil Phulera, District Jaipur (Owner Truck RJ- 14-GC-9848) 2. New India Assurance Company Limited Through Divisional Manager, Nehru Palace, Tonk Road, Jaipur (Insurance Co. Truck RJ-14-GC- 9848) ----Non-claimant/Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Nitesh Rawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tripurari Sharma with Mr. Vijay Laxmi Gauttam Ms. Neetu Bhansali HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 01/08/2025 1. The present appeal has been filed by the claimant/appellants under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, against the order dated 14.03.2016 passed by the learned Commissioner, Jaipur, District-1, Jaipur, under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, in ECCF/92/2013 titled as Smt. Santosh Yadav & Ors. vs. Radheyshyam & Ors., whereby the claim petition filed by the claimant/appellants was partly allowed and a sum of Rs.4,26,905/- along with interest @ 12% per annum was awarded as compensation. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on 25.04.2013, Boduram Yadav was employed as Khalasi over the [2025:RJ-JP:29407] (2 of 6) [CMA-4710/2016] truck bearing registration No. RJ-14-GC-9848 (owned by the non- claimant/respondent No.1- Radheyshyam Ola). When the said truck suffered a tyre failure, the deceased got down and started changing the flat tyre, suddenly another truck (bearing Registration No. RJ-06-GC-7125) came and hit the said truck, as a result of which the deceased sustained grievous injuries and was rushed to the hospital, where the right leg of the deceased had to be amputated, hence, the claimant/appellants filed a claim petition seeking just and fair compensation. Although, during the pendency of the claim petition, the deceased-Boduram Yadav succumbed to death. 3. After receiving notice of the claim petition, the non- claimant/respondent No.1 filed their reply to the claim petition, denying the averments made therein and submitting that the deceased was working as a Khalasi on the truck in question, and the truck was insured with the non-claimant/respondent No.2- Insurance Company. Therefore, if any liability was to be found due, the same should be fastened upon the non- claimant/respondent No.2-Insurance Company. Accordingly, his counsel prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 4. The non-claimant/respondent No.2- Insurance Company filed a detailed reply to the claim petition, denying the averments made therein, it was further contended that: (i) the deceased was not working as a Khalasi under the employment of non- claimant/respondent No.1; (ii) the vehicle was only insured for covering the risk of the owner and not for an employee; and (iii) the driver of the truck in question did not have a valid and effective license, constituting a violation of the insurance policy. [2025:RJ-JP:29407] (3 of 6) [CMA-4710/2016] Accordingly, their counsel prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Commissioner framed five (5) issues. 6. After hearing the arguments of counsels for the respective parties at length, and perusing the material available on record, the learned Commissioner partly allowed the claim petition, while assessing the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.4,980/- and considering the facts at hand, awarded a sum of Rs.4,26,905/- as compensation along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. 7. Being aggrieved by which, the claimant/appellants have preferred the present appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the learned Commissioner. 8. Learned counsel for the claimant/appellants submits that the learned Commissioner has erred by awarding an inadequate amount of compensation, as he overlooked the fact that the deceased was earning a monthly income of Rs.8,000/- and not Rs.4,980/-, and therefore, prays that the impugned award may kindly be suitably enhanced. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the non-claimant/respondent No.2- Insurance Company opposes these submissions and submits that the learned Commissioner has, after due appreciation of the facts and law, awarded just and proper compensation. He further submits that the impugned award does not suffer from any legal infirmity, nor any substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal warranting any interference with the award, and [2025:RJ-JP:29407] (4 of 6) [CMA-4710/2016] accordingly, prays for dismissal of the appeal. 10. Heard and considered the submissions made at bar and also perused the material available on record. 11. From a bare perusal of the record, it is evident that no documentary evidence was produced by the claimant/appellants to substantiate that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.8,000/-, in the absence of the same, the learned Commissioner has rightly considered income of the deceased as Rs 4,980/-, the minimum wages payable to an unskilled worker prevalent at the time @ Rs.166 per day. This approach adopted by the learned Commissioner cannot be said to be perverse, especially in the absence of any conclusive documentary proof. 12. It is pertinent to note that even otherwise, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the claimant/appellants do not fall within the realms of substantial question of law, and it is trite law that appeals under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 are maintainable only if there are any substantial questions of law involved. 13. All the questions raised by the learned counsel for the claimant/appellants fall within the realm of question of fact and do not elucidate any legal infirmity or perversity in the impugned award. 14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Golla Rajanna Etc. Vs. The Divisional Manager and anr. reported in 2017 (1) SCC 45, held 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 [2025:RJ-JP:29407] (5 of 6) [CMA-4710/2016] the High Court from the following orders of a Commissioner, namely: (a) an order awarding as compensation a lumpsum 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) 10. Under the scheme of the Act, the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner is the last authority on facts. The Parliament has [2025:RJ-JP:29407] (6 of 6) [CMA-4710/2016] thought it fit to restrict the scope of the appeal only to substantial question 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. 15. Thus, it is a well-settled position of law that a limited jurisdiction has been given to the High Court, which is to be confined within the contours of substantial question of law only, the High Court cannot venture out of the same and re-appreciate the evidence and findings of fact recorded on the evidence led by both the parties. 16. This Court finds no reasonable ground to interfere with any of the factual findings. None of the factual findings are found to be either perverse; or arbitrary; or based on non-appreciation of evidence, or against any provision of law. This Court accordingly upholds the findings arrived at by the learned Commissioner. 17. Since the appeal does not fall within the contours of substantial questions of law, which is mandatory under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, no interference is called for in this appeal, and the same deserves to be dismissed. 18. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. 19. All pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed. (MANEESH SHARMA),J DEEPA-53