15.09.2026 D/L. 4 Ct. No. 17 RANJAN FMAT 75 of 2021 IA NO.CAN 1 of 2021 CAN 2 of 2021 CAN 3 of 2021 TARAPADA MAL VS. MADAN HALDER & ANR. Mr. Soujanya Bandyopadhyay .… for the appellant This is an application filed under section 30 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923. Briefly, the applicant had filed a claim case being Claim Case No. 398 of 2005 before the Learned Commissioner, 3rd Court, Commissioner Employee’s Compensation, West Bengal. It was alleged that an accident had occurred while driving the vehicle bearing Registration No. WB-04/1974. It was further alleged that the applicant has sustained fracture injuries on different parts of his body and had become permanently disabled and could not work any longer as a driver. On behalf of the respondent Insurance Company, it was contended that the entire case of the applicant is misconceived and untenable. There was no relationship of 2 workman and employee. There are no injuries which had taken place. The applicant had failed to disclose any documents insofar as material facts of his claim were concerned. In such circumstances, the Learned Commissioner, 3rd Court, Commissioner Employee’s Compensation, West Bengal had arrived at a finding that the applicant had complained of pain of right knee and left leg and cut injuries but there was no evidence at all of any kind of fracture whatsoever. The Medical Report relied on by the applicant was also suspicious and had been obtained from a private doctor. In such circumstances, the applicant had failed to prove any of the ingredients in order to sustain his claim and the same had been justifiably dismissed. Admittedly, the impugned order was passed as far back as on January 7, 2019 and the instant appeal preferred after a period of more than two years. It has been held in the impugned order that whether there was an accident or not and whether there was any kind of injury or relationship of master and servant between the applicant 3 and the private respondent vehicle owner had not been proved. The Commissioner has come to finding that “the applicant had miserably failed to prove that he was the driver of the vehicle and he sustained those injuries in course of his employment.....”. In such circumstances, there is no question of law far less any substantial question of law which warrants interference in this appeal. A second appeal is competent to be admitted only if the case involves substantial question of law at the stage of admission. [Balwinder Singh v National Fertilizers Ltd. (2014) 13 SCC 277] All the questions sought to be raised by the appellants are pure questions of fact. This is misconceived appeal and is liable to be dismissed. FMAT 75 of 2021 along with connected applications being CAN 1 of 2021, CAN 2 of 2021 and CAN 3 of 2021 stand disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. [RAVI KRISHAN KAPUR, J.] [ATARUP BANERJEE, J.]