[2026:RJ-JP:13359] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3502/2016 Salim Khan S/o Shri Bunda Khan, aged about 40 years, R/o Village Hajipura, Tehsil Tonk, District Tonk (Raj.) ----Appellant Versus 1. Fiyaz Khan S/o Bunda Khan, R/o Hazipura, Post Arniyakeadar, District Tonk (Raj.) (Driver of Vehicle Tractor No. RJ-26-RA-1966) 2. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Salam Complex, Opposite Hospital Road, Tonk (Raj.) (Insurance Company of Vehicle Tractor No. RJ-26-RA-1966). ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Avinash Dhanju, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Priyansha Barwar, Adv. for Mr. Rahul Lodha, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS Judgment / Order 30/03/2026 vihykFkhZ&nkosnkj ¼vkxs ^^vihykFkhZ^^ dgk tkosxk½ dh vksj ls ;g vihy /kkjk 30 deZdkj {kfriwfrZ vf/kfu;e] 1923 ¼vkxs ^^vf/kfu;e&1923^^ dgk tkosxk½ ds rgr fo}ku U;k;ky;] vk;qDr deZpkjh {kfriwfrZ vf/kfu;e] Vksad }kjk izdj.k E.C.A./N.F./9/2010 esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 09-02-2016 ls O;fFkr gksdj is'k dh gS] ftlds ek/;e ls vkgr@vihykFkhZ dks dqy 4]38]734@&:i;s e; 12 izfr'kr okf"kZd C;kt lfgr izfrdj fnyk;k x;k gSA fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykFkhZ dk fuosnu gS fd vkgr dk nq?kZVuk esa gkFk dV tkus ds dkj.k ls LFkk;h fu'kDrrk 100 izfr'kr ekudj izfrdj fnyk;k tkuk pkfg,] tcfd fo}ku vf/kdj.k }kjk 70 izfr'kr LFkk;h [2026:RJ-JP:13359] (2 of 3) [CMA-3502/2016] fu'kDrrk ekudj izfrdj fnyk;k gS] tks vi;kZIr gS] vr% ;Fkksfpr :i ls izfrdj c<+k;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA blds foijhr fo}ku vf/koDrk izR;FkhZ dk fuosnu gS fd yh xbZ vkifRr rF;ksa o lkexzh ds vk/kkj ij gS vkSj bl ij fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds }kjk nksuksa i{kksa dh lk{; ij lE;d :i ls fopkj djus ds mijkar vihyk/khu fu.kZ; ikfjr fd;k gSA mudk ;g Hkh fuosnu gS fd bl ekeys esa fof/k dk dksbZ lkjoku iz'u varoZfyr ugha gS vkSj bl dkj.k ls U;kf;d fu.kZ; North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs. Smt. Sujatha (2019) 11 SCC 514 ,oa ^^vf/kfu;e&1923** dh /kkjk 30 ds izko/kkuksa ds vuqlkj ;g vihy iks"k.kh; ugha gksus ls [kkfjt gksus ;ksX; gSA ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; dk U;kf;d fu.kZ; North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs. Smt. Sujatha (Supra) lqlaxr gS] ftlds iSjk la[;k&9] 10] 11 o 12 fuEukuqlkj gSa%& 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 dependents 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 afore-mentioned 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 lie only against the specific orders set out in clause (a) to (e) of Section 30 of the Act with a further rider [2026:RJ-JP:13359] (3 of 3) [CMA-3502/2016] contained in first proviso to the Section that the appeal must involve substantial question 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 be 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. mijksDr fu.kZ; esa izfrikfnr O;oLFkk ds vuqlkj LFkk;h fu'kDrrk dk fcanq o izfrdj dh ek=k rF;ksa ls lacaf/kr gSa] ftl ij fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds }kjk lE;d :i ls fopkj djus ds mijkar vihyk/khu fu.kZ; ikfjr fd;k x;k gS rFkk fof/k dk dksbZ lkjoku iz'u bl ekeys esa vUroZfyr ugha gSA bl izdkj U;kf;d fu.kZ; North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation ¼iwoksZDr½ esa izfrikfnr O;oLFkk rFkk ^^vf/kfu;e&1923** dh /kkjk&30 ds vuqlkj ;g vihy iks"k.kh; ugha gksus ls [kkfjt gksus ;ksX; gSA ifj.kker% vihykFkhZ&nkosnkj dh vksj ls izLrqr ;g vihy [kkfjt dh tkrh gS rFkk vihyk/khu fu.kZ; fnukad 09-02-2016 dh iqf"V dh tkrh gSA LFkxu vkosnu o vU; vkosnu] ;fn dksbZ yafcr gksa] rks os Hkh mDrkuqlkj fuLrkfjr fd;s tkrs gSaA fopkj.k U;k;ky; dk vfHkys[k] ;fn izkIr gks j[kk gS] rks vkns'k dh izfr ds lkFk izsf"kr fd;k tkosA (UMA SHANKER VYAS),J DINESH KUMAWAT /07