[2026:RJ-JP:8570] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 900/2020 Rekha Parnami D/o Late Madan Lal Parnami, Aged About 46 Years, R/o 117 Gurunanak Pura, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan). ----Appellant Versus 1. Smt. Jankesh Parnami W/o Late Madan Lal Parnami, R/o 117 Gurunanak Pura, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan) 9Owner Of Auto Rikshaw No. Rj 14-Pb-9540) 2. Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited, E-8, Epip, Riico Industrial Area, Sitapura, Jaipur (Rajasthan) ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Ms. Surbhi Khandelwal, Adv. & Mr. Devendra Raj Jain, Adv. for Mr. D. D. Khandelwal, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishipal Agrawal, Adv. with Mr. Mihir Jangid, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS Judgment / Order 24/02/2026 vihykFkhZ@nkosnkj@izkFkhZ ¼vkxs ^^nkosnkj^^ 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 deZdkj {kfriwfrZ vf/kfu;e] 1923 t;iqj }kjk izdj.k E.C.C.F. No. 25/2014 esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 01-01-2020 ls O;fFkr gksdj is'k dh gS] ftlds ek/;e ls nkosnkj dh Dyse ;kfpdk [kkfjt dh xbZA fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykFkhZ@nkosnkj dk fuosnu gS fd vkWVks fjD'kk uacj RJ 14 PB 9540 foi{kh@izR;FkhZ Øe&1 Jherh tuds'k ijukeh ds LokfeRo dk Fkk] e`rd iou nq?kZVuk ds le; bl ij pkyd gksdj foi{kh Øe&1 dk deZpkjh Fkk vkSj bl ckcr~ vfHkys[k ij i;kZIr lkexzh gS ijarq [2026:RJ-JP:8570] (2 of 4) [CMA-900/2020] blds ckotwn mls utjvankt djrs gq, vihyk/khu vkns'k ds ek/;e ls vihykFkhZ@nkosnkj dh Dyse ;kfpdk [kkfjt dh xbZ gS] ;g fu.kZ; o fu"d"kZ fof/k&fo#) o euekuk gSA blds foijhr fo}ku vf/koDrk izR;FkhZ&chek dEiuh dk rdZ gS fd Lo;a izkFkhZ;k }kjk izfrijh{kk esa ;g Lohdkj fd;k x;k gS fd ;g vkWVks fjD'kk e`rd iou ds fy, mlds firk us [kjhnk Fkk] iwoZ esa vkWVks e`rd ds firk ds uke ls Fkk vkSj mldh e`R;q ds mijkar e`rd dh ekrk ds uke varfjr gqvk gSA e`rd foi{kh Øe&1 dk deZdkj gks] bl ckcr~ i=koyh ij dksbZ nLrkost o ekSf[kd lk{; ugha gS] vihyk/khu fu.kZ; dks rF;ksa o fof/k ds vuq:i gksuk crkrs gq, vihy [kkfjt fd;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA fo}ku vf/koDrk izR;FkhZ dh vksj ls ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs. Sujatha (2019) 11 SCC 514 izLrqr djrs gq, ;g Hkh fuosnu fd;k fd fu;kstu dk fcanq rF;ksa ls lacaf/kr gSa] ftl ij fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk lE;d :i ls fu"d"kZ fn;k x;k gS] fof/k dk dksbZ lkjoku iz'u varoZfyr ugha gS] vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa ^^vf/kfu;e&1923^^ dh /kkjk&30 ds izko/kkuksa ds vuqlkj ;g vihy iks"k.kh; ugha gSA ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs. Sujatha (Supra) ds lqlaxr iSjk la[;k&9] 10] 11 rFkk 12 fuEukuqlkj gS%& 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 [2026:RJ-JP:8570] (3 of 4) [CMA-900/2020] 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 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. orZeku ekeys esa nkosnkj Jherh js[kk e`rd dh cgu gS rFkk foi{kh Øe&1 e`rd dh ekrk gSA izkFkhZ;k }kjk viuh izfrijh{kk esa ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd nq?kZVuk esa fyIr vkWVks e`rd ds firk }kjk e`rd ds fy, [kjhnk x;k Fkk] iwoZ esa e`rd ds firk ds uke iathd`r Fkk ckn esa e`rd dh ekrk ds uke varfjr gqvk gSA mijksDr LohdkjksfDr ls Li"V gS fd okLro esa bl okgu dk Lokeh] lapkyd] mi;ksxdrkZ o fu;a=d e`rd gh FkkA e`rd foi{kh Øe&1 mijksDr vkWVks ij deZpkjh ds :i esa dk;Zjr gks] bl ckcr~ dksbZ lkexzh vfHkys[k ij ugha gSA fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk fn;k x;k fu"d"kZ lk{; ds vHkko esa gks vFkok egRoiw.kZ lk{; dks utjvankt fd;k x;k gks] ,slh fLFkfr ugha gS] vr% ikfjr fu.kZ; dks euekuk ;k vuqfpr ugha dgk tk ldrk] ;g fcanq iw.kZr% rF;ksa ls lacaf/kr gSA mijksDr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa fof/k dk dksbZ lkjoku iz'u bl ekeys esa vUroZfyr ugha gS] 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 [2026:RJ-JP:8570] (4 of 4) [CMA-900/2020] ifj.kker% vihykFkhZ@nkosnkj dh vksj ls izLrqr ;g vihy [kkfjt dh tkrh gS rFkk vihyk/khu fu.kZ; fnukad 01-01-2020 dh iqf"V dh tkrh gSA fopkj.k U;k;ky; dk vfHkys[k] ;fn izkIr gks j[kk gS] rks bl vkns'k dh izfr ds lkFk fopkj.k U;k;ky; dks izsf"kr fd;k tkosA (UMA SHANKER VYAS),J DINESH KUMAWAT /41