29 09.07.2026 Ct. No.17 J.Das FMAT (WC) 1 of 2025 IA No.CAN/1/2026 CAN/2/2026 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Punam Kumari Singh & Ors. Mr. Soumalya Ganguli …For the appellant Mr. L. M. Ghosh Mr. K. C. Bose …For the respondent no.1 Mr. Atanu Chakraborty Miss. Rimi Ghora …For the respondent nos.2 & 3 In Re: CAN/1/2026 1. This is an application for condonation of delay. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that due to unavoidable reasons there has been a delay of 49 days in the filing of this appeal. 2. The respondents are represented and do not seriously oppose the prayer for condonation. In view of the sufficient cause and cogent reasons disclosed by the appellant, CAN 1 of 2026 stands allowed. In Re: FMAT (WC) 1 of 2025 1. By consent of the parties, the appeal and the connected stay application are taken up for hearing. This is an appeal under section 30 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923. 2. Briefly, the grievance of the appellant is directed against an order dated 17 September 2024 passed 2 by the Learned Commissioner, 1st Court, Employee’s Compensation, West Bengal. By the impugned order, the claim filed by the respondent no. 1 has been allowed on contest and the appellant has been directed to make payment of Rs.4,06,849/- (Four Lakh Six Thousand Eight Hundred and Forty Nine) alongwith simple interest @ 12% per annum commencing after expiry of one month from the date of accident of this case till its realization. 3. On behalf of the appellant, it is submitted that though there is no grievance against the quantum of compensation, the only dispute is whether in passing the impugned order, the Commissioner was entitled to direct interest @ 12% commencing from the expiry of one month from the date of the accident till its realization to be paid by the appellant. 4. On behalf of the private respondent employer it is submitted that they have no obligation to pay any amount either on account of principal or interest. It is also submitted that the additional terms and conditions now sought to be relied on by the appellant were not before the Learned Commissioner and the same are being introduced for the first time in appeal. 5. On behalf of the claimant it is submitted that the alleged terms and conditions being relied by the appellant have neither been signed nor were the 3 same part of the original records before the Learned Commissioner. This document was not also exhibited before the Commissioner. 6. Section 30 of the Act 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; 7 [(aa) an order awarding interest or penalty under section 4A;] (b) an order refusing to allow redemption of a half-monthly payment; (c) an order providing for the distribution of compensation among the dependants of a deceased 6 [employee], 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 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 1 [ten thousand rupees or such higher amount as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify]: Provided, further, that no appeal shall lie in any case in which the parties have agreed to abide by the decision of the Commissioner, or in which the order of the Commissioner gives effect to an agreement come to by the parties: 2 [Provided further that no appeal by an employer under clause (a) shall lie unless the memorandum of appeal is accompanied by a certificate by the Commissioner to the effect that the appellant has deposited with him the amount payable under the order appealed against.] (2) The period of limitation for an appeal under this section shall be sixty days. (3) The provisions of section 5 of 3 [the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963)] shall be applicable to appeals under this section. 7. On a plain reading of the above section it would be evident that the proviso to section (1) specifies that no appeal shall lie against any order unless it involves a substantial question of law. 8. It is contended by the appellant that by reason of the contract of insurance, it is the insurer and not the appellant who has made itself liable to reimburse the insured towards any payment on account of interest on compensation which is a 4 substantial question of law warranting admission of the appeal. 9. In order to meet the condition of a case involving a substantial question of law there must be a foundation for the proposed question which is to be established either from the pleadings or the documentary evidence or the submissions of the parties before the Commissioner. In other words, the substantial question of law must naturally arise from the facts and the determination of the legal question must be imperative for a fair and just outcome of the case. The question must obviously strike at the core of the issues under consideration. 10. The document which is sought to be relied is now being introduced for the first time in this appeal. This was not an annexure nor exhibited before the Commissioner. In such circumstances, the entire factual and legal basis for the proposed substantial question of law is not borne out from the pleadings nor from the exhibits which had been adduced before the Commissioner. In the above circumstances, there is no scope for entertaining this appeal. There is no substantial question of law for which there is any foundation before the Commissioner and can now be raised in appeal. (Ram Kumar Agarwal & Another vs. Thawar Das AIR 1999 SC 3248). 5 11. In the above facts and circumstances, the substantial question of law sought to be raised by the appellant has neither any factual nor legal foundation in the pleadings nor in the evidence relied on by the parties. The proposed substantial question of law is a mixed question of law and fact which was never raised before the Commissioner. 12. It is a matter of some regret that the accident occurred in 2013. The claim case (being Claim Case No.10 of 2014) was filed in 2014. The evidence of the P.W.-1 witness was concluded in 2019. The judgment was delivered on 17 September 2024. The instant appeal was filed on 3 January 2025 and the appellant had neither paid nor deposited the compensation amount. It was only pursuant to an order passed by this Court that the compensation has now been deposited with the Learned Commissioner on 26.6.2026. 13. In this background, there is no substantial question of law which warrants admission of this appeal. The appeal stands dismissed. The connected application being CAN 2 of 2026 also stands disposed of. [Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.] [Chaitali Chatterjee (Das), J.]