Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2026 DAILYLAW 17633 (RAJ)

CHETRAM GURJAR v. SANJAY BULK COURIER AND INDUSTRIES AND ANR

CMA/3115/2017 · 2026-02-06

Uma Shanker Vyas

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2026:RJ-JP:5637] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3115/2017 Chetram Gurjar S/o Udda Lal, Aged about 25 Years, R/o Ranipura, P.s. Dablana, Tehsil- Hindoli, District Bundi, Presently Residing At Sonwa, Tehsil And District Tonk Raj. ----Appellant Versus 1. Sanjay Bulk Courier And Industries, Office At E-97, Industrial Area, Kherda, District Sawaimadhopur, Through Vijay Kumar Gupta S/o Ramdayal, Garg Bhawan, Sorati Bazar, City Sawaimadhopur, P.s. Kotawali, District Sawaimadhopur. 2. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Through Manager, Office At B- Indra Colony, Bazariya, Sawaimadhopur. Raj. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Ms. Itishree Sharma, Adv. Ms. Gauri Meena, Adv. for Mr. Deepak Khandelwal, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tej Prakash Sharma, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS Judgment / Order 06/02/2026 vihykFkhZ&nkosnkj@vkgr dh vksj ls ;g vihy fo}ku U;k;ky; vk;qDr deZpkjh {kfriwfrZ] Vksasd }kjk izdj.k E.C.C./N/F/30/2015 esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 20-12-2016 ls O;fFkr gksdj is'k dh gS ftlds ek/;e ls nkosnkj ds i{k esa 5]14]105@& :i;s izfrdj fnyk;s tkus dk vkns'k ikfjr fd;k x;kA fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykFkhZ&nkosnkj rFkk izR;FkhZ dh cgl lquh x;h] vfHkys[k dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykFkhZ dk fuosnu gS fd tks izfrdj jkf'k fnykbZ xbZ gS] og vi;kZIr gSA vkgr dh vk; vkfn ds laca/k esa fopkj.k [2026:RJ-JP:5637] (2 of 3) [CMA-3115/2017] U;k;ky; }kjk lgh :i ls fopkj ugha fd;k x;k gS vkSj bl vk/kkj ij izfrdj jkf'k ;Fkksfpr :i ls c<k;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA blds foijhr fo}ku vf/koDrk izR;FkhZ dh vksj ls ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; dk U;kf;d fu.kZ; North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs. Smt. Sujatha (2019) 11 SCC 514 is'k djrs gq, fuosnu fd;k fd tks vkifRr mBk;h x;h gS] og rF; ls lacaf/kr gS rFkk fof/k dk dksbZ lkjoku iz'u bl ekeys esa vUroZfyr 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 North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation (Supra) ds 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 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 [2026:RJ-JP:5637] (3 of 3) [CMA-3115/2017] 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. mijksDr foospukuqlkj Li"V gS fd izdj.k esa tks vkifRr yh x;h gS] og rF;ksa ds laca/k esa gSA nksuksa i{kksa dh vksj ls izLrqr lk{; ds vk/kkj ij fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk tks fu"d"kZ fn;k x;k gS] og iw.kZr% fof/klEer gSA mijksDr fu.kZ; esa izfrikfnr fof/kd O;oLFkk rFkk vf/kfu;e&1923 dh /kkjk 30 ds izko/kkuksa ds vuqlkj vihy ek= fof/k ds lkjoku iz'u ij gh iks"k.kh; gSA pwafd bl ekeys esa fof/k dk dksbZ iz'u vUroZfyr ugha gS] vr% ;g vihy [kkfjt gksus ;ksX; gSA mijksDr foospukuqlkj vihyk/khu fu.kZ; fnukad 20-12-2016 dh iqf"V djrs gq, ;g vihy [kkfjt dh tkrh gSaA 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 /31