[2026:RJ-JP:4294] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3393/2015 New India Assurance Company Ltd., having it’s Branch at Jalan Bhawan, opposite Court, Sikar, regional office at Nehru Place, Tonk Road, Jaipur through Regional Manager, through it’s Constituted Attorney. ----Appellant Versus 1. Pemaram, son of Kana Ram, resident of Village Motipura, Tehsil Nawa, District Nagaur at present resident of village Jachas, Tehsil and Distrcit Sikar (Raj.) ...Claimant-respondent 2. Ratanram, son of Lalu ram, resident of Rampura, Tehsil Nawa, District Nagaur (Raj.) ----non-lciamant-Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Tripurari Sharma with Mr. Bhupendra Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Akshat Choudhary JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 30/01/2026 1. By way of filing the instant civil misc. appeal, a challenge has been led to the impugned award dated 04.06.2015 passed by the Court of Commissioner Workmen’s Compensation (for short, ‘CWC’), Sikar in Claim Case No.04/2010, by which the claim petition submitted by the claimant-respondent (hereinafter referred to as ‘claimant’) has been allowed and the appellant-insurance company has been directed to pay compensation of Rs.3,79,569/- with interest @9% w.e.f. the date of accident. [2026:RJ-JP:4294] (2 of 7) [CMA-3393/2015] 2. Brief facts of the case are that a claim petition was submitted by the claimant before the CWC under Section 12 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short ‘the Act of 1923’) claiming compensation on account of the injury and fracture sustained by the claimant during the course of employment as Assistant Driver on Tractor No.RJ21-RC-4961 under the ownership of the respondent No.2. Since the vehicle was insured, hence, the appellant-insurance company was arrayed in the claim petition. It was stated in the claim petition that on 08.11.2009 when the claimant was putting fodder in thresher machine as per the directions of the owner- respondent No.2, all of sudden his right hand came in the thresher machine along with the bundle of fodder, as a result of which his fingers and thumb of right hand got crushed and was amputated. An FIR for the aforesaid incident was also lodged in the Police Station, hence, a prayer was made for issuing directions to the owner as well as the insurance company of the said vehicle to pay suitable amount of compensation to the claimant. 3. While submitting reply to the aforesaid claim petition, the respondent No.2 denied the averments made therein and the insurance company denied its liability on the technical count that the insurance policy of the vehicle was issued with regard to the tractor and the Driver but not for the thresher machine and no premium was charged to cover the risk for the helper or any second driver. [2026:RJ-JP:4294] (3 of 7) [CMA-3393/2015] 4. After completion of pleadings, the CWC framed as many as four issues. Parties appeared on behalf of both sides, led their evidence and thereafter, the claim petition submitted by the claimant was allowed vide award dated 04.06.2015 and non-claimants i.e. appellant-insurance company as well as the respondent No.2 have been directed to pay the aforesaid amount as stated above to the claimants. 5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the aforesaid judgment/award, the appellant-insurance company has preferred the instant civil misc. appeal before this Court by formulating the following substantial questions of law in the memo of appeal in ground No.O: “(i) Whether the risk of any assistant driver/khalasi or helper, other then the driver was covered under the policy? (ii) Whether there was any nexus between the employment and injury in the case? (iii) Whether the driver was having any valid and effective driving licence at the time of allege incident/accident? (iv) Whether the risk of person working on thresher was covered in the policy as the thresher was not insured? (v) Whether 55% permanent disability and 70% loss of earning capacity can be said to be proved as no doctor was examined.” 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the insurance company submitted that the risk of any assistant driver, khalasi or helper is not covered under the insurance policy, hence, under these circumstances, the insurance company is [2026:RJ-JP:4294] (4 of 7) [CMA-3393/2015] not liable to pay any sort of compensation to the claimant. He further submits that the claimant has suffered 55% permanent disability, hence, he has lost 70% of his earning capacity, but no doctor was examined in this regard, hence, under these circumstances, the amount so awarded by the CWC is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same is liable to be quashed and set-aside. 7. Per contra, learned appearing on behalf of the claimant opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the appellant and submitted that finding of fact has been recorded by the CWC. He further submitted that in the memo of appeal, in all, five questions of law have been framed, but none of them are the questions of law, but the same are question of facts. He submitted that an appeal under Section 30 of the Act of 1923 is not maintainable on the finding of facts, but the same is maintainable on the pure question of law, hence, under the these circumstances, the instant appeal is not maintainable and is liable to be rejected on this count alone. 8. In support of his contentions, counsel for the claimant has placed reliance upon the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Golla Rajanna Etc. Etc. vs. The Divisional Manager and Another, Etc. Etc. while deciding Civil Appeal No.11114-11119/2016 vide order dated 23.11.2026 and in the case of North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation vs. Sujatha reported in 2019 (11) SCC 514. [2026:RJ-JP:4294] (5 of 7) [CMA-3393/2015] 9. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record. 10. Perusal of the aforesaid questions indicates that none of the above questions relate to any substantial question of law. Rather, they are questions of fact, which cannot be allowed to be appreciated and decided again by this Court, as finding of fact has already been recorded on these so-called questions of law, so framed by the appellant-insurance company. 11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Golla Rajanna (supra) has dealt with the identical issue, which is involved in the instant appeal, in Para Nos.9, 10 and 11, which reads as under: “9. Section 30 of the Act provides for appeals to the High Court. To the extent, the provision reads as follows: “30. Appeals.-(1) An appeal shall lie to the High Court from the following orders of a Commissioner, namely:- (a) an order awarding as compensation a lump sum whether by way of redemption of a half- monthly payment or otherwise or disallowing a claim in full or in part for a lump sum; [(aa) an order awarding interest or penalty under section 4A;] (b) an order refusing to allow redemption of a halfmonthly payment; (c) an order providing for the distribution of compensation among the dependants of a deceased workman, or disallowing any claim of a person alleging himself to be such dependant; (d) an order allowing or disallowing any claim for the amount of an indemnity under the provisions of sub- section (2) of section 12; or (e) an order refusing to register a memorandum of agreement or registering the [2026:RJ-JP:4294] (6 of 7) [CMA-3393/2015] same or providing for the registration of the same subject to conditions: Provided that no appeal shall lie against any order unless a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal and, in the case of an order other than an order such as is referred to in clause (b), unless the amount in dispute in the appeal is not less than three hundred rupees:” (Emphasis supplied) 10. The Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, having regard to the evidence, had returned a finding on the nature of injury and the percentage of disability. It is purely a question of fact. There is no case for the insurance company that the finding is based on no evidence at all or that it is perverse. Under Section 4(1)(c)(ii) of the Act, the percentage of permanent disability needs to be assessed only by a qualified medical practitioner. There is no case for the respondents that the doctor who issued the disability certificate is not a qualified medical practitioner, as defined under the Act. Thus, the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner has passed the order based on the certificate of disability issued by the doctor and which has been duly proved before the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner. 11. Under the scheme of the Act, the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner is the last authority on facts. The Parliament has thought it fit to restrict the scope of the appeal only to substantial questions of law, being a welfare legislation. Unfortunately, the High Court has missed this crucial question of limited jurisdiction and has ventured to re-appreciate the evidence and recorded its own findings on percentage of disability for which also there is no basis. The whole exercise made by the High Court is not within the competence of the High Court under Section 30 of the Act.” 12. Similarly, in the case of North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs. Smt. Sujatha (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has taken a similar view. [2026:RJ-JP:4294] (7 of 7) [CMA-3393/2015] 13. In the considered opinion of this Court, the substantial questions of law, so framed in the memo of appeal, are not the questions of law but the same are the questions of fact, hence, the instant Civil Misc. Appeal is not maintainable, as findings of fact have been recorded against the appellant by the learned Commissioner, after appreciation of evidence led by both the sides. 14. This Court does not find any merit and substance in the instant appeal and same is found to be devoid of merits and is liable to be and is hereby rejected. 15. Accordingly, the Civil Misc. Appeal stands dismissed. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed. 16. The summoned record, if any, received be sent back to the Commissioner forthwith. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/9