[2026:RJ-JP:8960] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 5983/2016 Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited, Through Regional Divisional Manager, Regional Office, Krishna Tower, Upon Kotak Bank, Sardar Patel Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan, Having Its Corporate Office, Ll-94, TTC Industrial Area, MIDC, Mahape, Navi Mumbai, Through Legal Manager ----Appellant/Insurance Company Versus 1. Smt. Radha Devi W/o Late Murarilal, age 32 years, 2. Kumari Khushboo D/o Late Murarilal, age 17 years, 3. Master Sheetal S/o Late Murarilal, age 15 years, 4. Kumari Shiwani D/o Late Murarilal, age 13 years, 5. Master Vikas S/o Late Murarilal, age 11 years, Petitioner No. 2 to 5 minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Radha Devi W/o Late Murarilal, R/o Pachayawala, Lalpura, Karni Vihar, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 6. Aman Lamba S/o Vinod Kumar Lamba, R/o 94 C, Krishna Nagar, Mathura, Uttar Pradesh ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ritesh Jain, Adv. Ms. Poonam Mishra, Adv. Dr. Ramdeo Arya, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Adhiraj Singh Rajawat, Adv. for Mr. Devendra Raghava, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS Judgment / Order 26/02/2026 vihykFkhZ&foi{kh la[;k&2&chek daiuh dh vksj ls ;g vihy fo}ku U;k;ky; vk;qDr deZpkjh {kfriwfrZ vf/kfu;e] 1923 t;iqj 'kgj] t;iqj }kjk izdj.k E.C.C.F.-344/2012 esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 31-08-2016 ls [2026:RJ-JP:8960] (2 of 4) [CMA-5983/2016] O;fFkr gksdj is'k dh gS] ftlds ek/;e ls e`rd eqjkjh yky ds ds ifjtuksa@nkosnkjksa@izR;FkhZx.k dks dqy 6]75]935@&:i;s izfrdj ds :i esa o nkg laLdkj ds en esa 5]000@&:i;s 12 izfr'kr C;kt lfgr fnyk;s tkus dk vkns'k ikfjr fd;k x;kA fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykFkhZ&chek daiuh rFkk izR;FkhZx.k dh cgl lquh x;h] vfHkys[k dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykFkhZ&chek daiuh dk fuosnu gS fd e`rd eqjkjh yky ds ikl ?kVuk ds le; dksbZ oS/k o izHkkoh MªkbZfoax ykbZlsal ugha Fkk] og izR;FkhZ la[;k 6 dk deZpkjh gks vkSj fu;kstu dky esa mldh e`R;q gqbZ gS] ;g rF; Hkh lE;d :i ls izekf.kr ugha gqvk gS] vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa vihykFkhZ&chek daiuh dk dksbZ nkf;Ro ugha curk gSA var esa vihyk/khu vkns'k vikLr fd;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA blds foijhr fo}ku vf/koDrk izR;FkhZ la[;k 1 ls 5&nkosnkjksa dh vksj ls fuosnu fd;k x;k fd e`rd ds MªkbZfoax ykbZlsal rFkk e`rd ds izR;FkhZ la[;k&6 ds ;gka deZpkjh ds :I esa fu;ksftr gksus ds laca/k esa izkFkhZ i{k dh vkSj ls leqfpr lk{; is'k dh x;h gS rFkk ml ij fopkj djus ds mijkar gh vihyk/khu fu.kZ; fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fd;k x;k gSA mudk ;g Hkh fuosnu gS fd tks vk{ksi yx;s x;s gSa os rF;ksa ds laca/k esa gSA ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr U;kf;d fu.kZ; North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs. Smt. Sujatha (2019) 11 SCC 514 esa ikfjr O;oLFkk ds vuqlkj 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 U;kf;d fu.kZ; North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation (Supra) ds iSjk la[;k&9] 10] 11 rFkk 12 lqlaxr gS] tks fuEukuqlkj gS& [2026:RJ-JP:8960] (3 of 4) [CMA-5983/2016] 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 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. fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykFkhZ&chek daiuh dh vksj ls MªkbZfoax ykbZlsal rFkk e`rd o izR;FkhZ la[;k 6 ds fu;kstd o deZpkjh ds laca/kksa ds ckcr [2026:RJ-JP:8960] (4 of 4) [CMA-5983/2016] tks vk{ksi yxk;s x;s gSa] mlds laca/k esa fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk izkFkhZ i{k dh lk{; ij fopkj djus ds mijkar vihykFkhZ@chek daiuh ds fo:) viuk fu"d"kZ fn;k gSA ;g fu"d"kZ lk{; ds vHkko esa gks vFkok egRoiw.kZ lk{; dks utj vUnkt fd;k x;k gks] ,slh fLFkfr ugha gSA mBk;h x;h vkifRr;ka rF;ksa ds laca/k esa gS] vr% fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk tks fu"d"kZ fn;k x;k gS] og iw.kZr% fof/klEer gSA pwafd bl ekeys esa fof/k dk dksbZ lkjoku iz'u vUroZfyr ugha gS] vr% ;g vihy [kkfjt gksus ;ksX; gSA mijksDr foospukuqlkj vihyk/khu fu.kZ; fnukad 31-08-2016 dh iqf"V djrs gq, ;g vihy [kkfjt dh tkrh gSaA LFkxu izkFkZuk i= Hkh blh vuqlkj [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA vfHkys[k bl vkns'k dh izfr ds lkFk fopkj.k U;k;ky; dks izsf"kr fd;k tkosA (UMA SHANKER VYAS),J Murari Lal Sharma /62