[2026:RJ-JP:8581] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1507/2021 Regional Manager, Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, Address- Third Floor A-13, And 37, Hanuman Nagar, Khatipura Tiraha, Sirsi Road, Jaipur, Presently At 2Nd Floor, Bhagwati Bhawan, Government Hostel Crossing M.i. Road, Jaiupr-302001, Rajasthan (Insurance Company Trailer No. Hr-55-N-8581) ----Appellant Versus 1. Shrimati Sunita Devi W/o Late Shri Omprakash, aged 25 years, 2. Kumari Ameesha D/o Late Shri Omprakash, Aged About 21/2 years., 3. Devraj S/o Late Shri Omprakash, Aged About 1 Years, 4. Manglaram S/o Shri Nanag, age 70 years (Died), 5. Prabhati W/o Manglaram, aged 65 years, all Resident Of Dhaani Seesatya, Tan Bajrangpura, Antela Police Station Shahpura, District Jaipur. ----Respondents/Claimants 6. Laxmi Narayan Jat S/o Shri Nanuram Jat, Resident Of 105, Sushant Lok, Gurgaon, Haryana. (Registered Vehicle Owner Trailer No. HR-55-N- 8581) ----Respondent/Non-Applicant No.1 For Appellant(s) : Mr. Yashdeep Singh, Adv. Mr. Rajdeep Rathore, Adv. For Respondent(s) : [2026:RJ-JP:8581] (2 of 5) [CMA-1507/2021] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS Judgment / Order 24/02/2026 vihykFkhZ&foi{kh la[;k-&2@chek daiuh ¼ftls vkxs foi{kh la[;k&2 dgk tk,xk½ dh vksj ls ;g vihy fo}ku U;k;ky; vk;qDr deZpkjh {kfriwfrZ vf/kfu;e] 1923 t;iqj }kjk izdj.k E.C.C.F. 260/2018 esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 29-07-2021 ls O;fFkr gksdj is'k dh gS] ftlds ek/;e ls izR;FkhZ@nkosnkjksa dks muds firk@ifr e`rd vkseizdk'k dh foi{kh la[;k&1 ds fu;kstu ds nkSjku e`R;q gksus ds vk/kkj ij dqy 5]14]625@&:i;s izfrdj 12 izfr'kr C;kt lfgr fnyk;s tkus dk vkns'k ikfjr fd;k x;kA izR;FkhZ la[;k 2 ls 5 oLrqr% vkSipkfjd i{kdkj gS rFkk ewy izdj.k esa nkosnkj jgs gSaA izR;FkhZ la[;k 6 ij yacs le; ls uksfVl rkehy ugha gks jgs gSa] ysfdu blh izdze ij vihy dh iks"k.kh;rk ds fcUnq ij vihykFkhZ & foi{kh la[;k&2 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 izR;FkhZ la[;k 6 ds ;gka e`R;q ds le; deZdkj ds :i esa fu;ksftr gks] bl laca/k esa vfHkys[k ij dksbZ lkexzh o lk{; ugha gS] vihyk/khu fu.kZ; rF;ksa o fof/k ds foijhr gksdj euekuk] vuqfpr o nwf"kr 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 ds iSjk la[;k&9] 10] 11 rFkk 12 lqlaxr gS] tks fuEukuqlkj gS& [2026:RJ-JP:8581] (3 of 5) [CMA-1507/2021] 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. [2026:RJ-JP:8581] (4 of 5) [CMA-1507/2021] mijksDr U;kf;d fu.kZ; rFkk vf/kfu;e&1923 dh /kkjk 30 ds izko/kkuksa ds vuqlkj fof/k dk lkjoku iz'u vUroZfyr gksus ij gh vihy iks"k.kh; gSA orZeku ekeys esa izkFkhZ;k }kjk viuh lk{; ds ek/;e ls ;g izekf.kr fd;k gS fd e`rd foi{kh la[;k 1 ds LokfeRo ds Vªsyj uacj ,p-vkj-&55&,u&8581 ij nq?kZVuk ds le; pkyd Fkk rFkk ftl le; og okgu pyk jgk Fkk ml le; gkVZ vVSd ds dkj.k ls nkSjkus bykt mldh e`R;q gqbZA vihykFkhZ&chek daiuh dh vksj ls [k.Mu esa dksbZ lk{; izLrqr ugha dh x;h gSA e`rd dk foi{kh la[;k&1 ds ;gka fu;ksftr gksuk] fu;kstu ds nkSjku e`R;q gksuk vkfn lHkh iz'u mijksDr U;kf;d fu.kZ; ds vuqlkj rF;ksa ls lacaf/kr gS ftlds laca/k esa lE;d :i ls fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk fu"d"kZ fn;k x;k gSA mijksDr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk tks fu"d"kZ fn;k x;k gS] og lk{; ds vHkko esa gks vFkok miyC/k lk{; o lkexzh dks utj&vUnkt fd;k x;k gks vFkok tks rF; vfHkys[k ij ugha gks] mu ij fopkj fd;k x;k gks] ,slh fLFkfr ugha gSA fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk tks fu"d"kZ fn;k x;k gS] og iw.kZr% fof/klEer gSA pwafd 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 gS] vr% ;g vihy [kkfjt gksus ;ksX; gSA mijksDr foospukuqlkj vihyk/khu fu.kZ; fnukad 29-07-2021 dh iqf"V djrs gq, ;g vihy [kkfjt dh tkrh gSaA [2026:RJ-JP:8581] (5 of 5) [CMA-1507/2021] 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 /43