[2026:RJ-JP:6390] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1503/2018 1- iIih nsoh ifRu Lo- Jh Jo.k yky cSjok] vk;q 43 o"kZ 2- y{eh cSjok iq=h Lo- Jh Jo.k yky] vk;q 20 o"kZ 3- d`".k iq= Lo- Jh Jo.k yky] vk;q 13 o"kZ tfj;s lajf{kdk ekrk Jherh iIih nsoh ifRu Lo- Jh Jo.k yky fuoklh fp=dqV dkWyksuh] iapoVh] isVªksy iai ds lkeus] ekyh dh dksBh] fot;iqjk] cxjkuk] vkxjk jksM+] t;iqj ¼jktLFkku½ ------izkFkhZx.k@vihykFkhZx.k cuke 1- jkds'k dqekj iq= Jh guqeku lgk; oekZ] mez 32 o"kZ] fuoklh&xzke chpiMh] cuqdj ekSgYyk] Fkkuk dkyokM+] ftyk t;iqj ¼jkt0½ ¼okgu pkyd Vªd uacj RJ-14GF-2469½ 2- uUn fd'kksj iq= Jh gfjukjk;.k] vk;q 26 o"kZ] fuoklh IykV ua0 74] ghjkokyk] iqfyl Fkkuk dkuksrk] rglhy cLlh] ftyk t;iqjA ¼okgu ekfyd Vªd uacj RJ-14GF-2469½ 3- ;wukbZVsM bf.M;k bU';ksjsUl dEiuh fyfeVsM] dk;kZy; nSfud HkkLdj ds ikl] ifj"kn Hkou ds cjkcj] tokgj yky usg: fyad jksM] t;iqj&302015A ¼chek daiuh Vªd uacj RJ-14GF-2469½ ------izR;FkhZx.k@vizkFkhZx.k For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ankit Kumar, Adv. for Mr. Sumer Saini, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Chanderdeep Singh Jodha, Adv. Mr. Vikas Bana, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS Judgment / Order 11/02/2026 vihykFkhZ&nkosnkjksa dh vksj ls ;g vihy fo}ku U;k;ky; vk;qDr deZpkjh {kfriwfrZ vf/kfu;e 1923] t;iqj ftyk izFke&t;iqj }kjk izdj.k E.C.C.F.-08/2015 esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 13-12-2017 ls O;fFkr gksdj is'k dh gS] ftlds ek/;e ls nkosnkjksa ds i{k esa 5]41]780@&:i;s izfrdj fnyk;s tkus dk vkns'k ikfjr fd;k x;kA fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykFkhZ&nkosnkjksa rFkk izR;FkhZ dh cgl lquh x;h] vfHkys[k dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA [2026:RJ-JP:6390] (2 of 3) [CMA-1503/2018] fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykFkhZ dk fuosnu gS fd e`rd mes'k ?kVuk ds le; 24 o"khZ; vfookfgr Fkk] vf/kdj.k }kjk mldh vk; dh x.kuk lE;d :i ls ugha dh xbZ gS] tks izfrdj jkf'k fnykbZ xbZ gS] og vi;kZIr gS rFkk 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 fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk nkosnkjksa dh ekSf[kd o nLrkosth lk{; ij fopkj djus ds mijkar vk; gkfu dh x.kuk dh xbZ gS] ;g rF;ksa 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 [2026:RJ-JP:6390] (3 of 3) [CMA-1503/2018] 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. mijksDr U;kf;d fu.kZ; rFkk vf/kfu;e&1923 dh /kkjk 30 ds izko/kkuksa ds vuqlkj e`rd dh vk; dk iz'u rF;ksa ls laacaf/kr gSA fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk vk; ds laca/k esa lkjoku lk{; ij fopkj gh ugha fd;k gks vkSj mlds vk/kkj ij euekukiw.kZ fu.kZ; gks] ,slh fLFkfr ugha 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 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 13-12-2017 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 /19