[2026:RJ-JP:7806] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3052/2016 1. Smt. Saraswati W/o Late Shri Padam Singh R/o Village Salaimpur Khurd, Teh. Weir, Distt. Bharatpur Raj. 2. Yogesh S/o Late Shri Padam Singh, R/o Village Salaimpur Khurd, Teh. Weir, Distt. Bharatpur Raj. ----Appellants Versus 1. Balveer Singh S/o Shri Karansingh, House No. 183, Vill And Post Pali, Via Halaina, Police Station Halaina, Teh. Weir, District Bharatpur Raj. 2. National Insurance Company Ltd. Service Through Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd, 32, Lajpat Nagar, Near Bhagatsingh Circle, Alwar ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Virendra Agrawal, Adv. Ms. Sara P. Rajora, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tripurai Sharma, Adv. Mr. Bhupendra Singh, Adv. Mr. Pushpendra Kumar, Adv. Mr. Waseem Akram, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS Judgment / Order 18/02/2026 vihykFkhZ&nkosnkj ¼vkxs ^^nkosnkj^^ dgk tkosxk½ dh vksj ls ;g vihy /kkjk 30 deZdkj {kfriwfrZ vf/kfu;e] 1923 ¼vkxs ^^vf/kfu;e&1923^^ dgk tkosxk½ ds rgr fo}ku U;k;ky; vk;qDr deZpkjh {kfriwfrZ vf/kfu;e] 1923 Hkjriqj }kjk izdj.k MCY;q-lh-¼,Q½ Mh&32@2010 esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 19-01-2016 ls O;fFkr gksdj is'k dh gS ftlds ek/;e ls nkosnkjksa dks muds iq=@HkkbZ mn;flag dh foi{kh la[;k&1 ds fu;kstu ds nkSjku e`R;q gks tkus ij ^^vf/kfu;e&1923^^ ds rgr dqy 5]24]800@& :i;s [2026:RJ-JP:7806] (2 of 4) [CMA-3052/2016] izfrdj 12 izfr'kr C;kt lfgr fnyk;k x;k rFkk 5]000@& :i;s vafre laLdkj ds en esa izFkd ls fnyk;s tkus dk vkns'k fn;k x;kA fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykFkhZ rFkk izR;FkhZ dh cgl lquh x;h] vfHkys[k dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykFkhZ dk fuosnu gS fd nq?kZVuk fnukad 03-06-2010 ds le; pkyd tks fd dq'ky Jfed dh Js.kh esa vkrk gS] dh ekfld vk; U;wure etnwjh nj ds vuqlkj 8000@& :i;s izfrekg Fkh] ysfdu fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; us 5000@& :i;s ekfld vk; ekurs gq, izfrdj jkf'k dh x.kuk dh gS tks fof/k&lEer ugha gS] vius rdksaZ ds leFkZu esa U;kf;d fu.kZ; K. Sivaraman and Ors. Vs. P. Sathishkumar and Ors. AIR 2020 SC 954 izLrqr fd;kA blds foijhr fo}ku vf/koDrk izR;FkhZ&chek dEiuh dk fuosnu gS fd e`rd dh ekfld vk; D;k Fkh] ;g rF; dk fo"k; gSA miyC/k lk{; ds vk/kkj ij lE;d :i ls fopkj dj fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;k;y us viuk fu"d"kZ fn;k gS tks rF;ksa ds laca/k esa gSA mudk ;g Hkh fuosnu gS fd ^^vf/kfu;e&1923^^ dh /kkjk&30 ds izko/kkuksa rFkk North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs. Smt. Sujatha (2019) 11 SCC 514 esa izfrikfnr O;oLFkk ds vuqlkj fof/k dk lkjoku iz'u vUroZfyr gksus ij gh ;g ;g vihy iks"k.kh; gSA ;g Hkh fuosnu fd;k fd mijksDr fu.kZ; esa ;g Li"V fd;k x;k gS fd vk; dk fcUnq rF; ls lacaf/kr gS vkSj ftl ij ;g vihy iks"k.kh; ugha gSA bl izdkj ;g vihy [kkfjt fd;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation (Supra) dk 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 [2026:RJ-JP:7806] (3 of 4) [CMA-3052/2016] 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. mijksDr fu.kZ; esa izfrikfnr fof/kd O;oLFkk rFkk vf/kfu;e&1923 dh /kkjk 30 ds izko/kkuksa ds vuqlkj Li"V gS fd fof/k dk lkjoku iz'u vUroZfyr gksus ij gh vihy lquokbZ gsrq xzg.k dh tk ldrh gSA orZeku ekeys esa fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk i{kdkjksa dh lk{; ij fopkj djus ds mijkUr e`rd dh vk; dh x.kuk djrs gq, izfrdj jkf'k fnyk;h gSA miyC/k lk{; ij xkSj ugha fd;k x;k gks vFkok tks lkexzh vfHkys[k ij ugha gks] ml ij fopkj djrs gq, euekus rjhds ls fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk fu.kZ; ikfjr fd;k gks] ,slh fLFkfr vfHkys[k ij ugha gSA [2026:RJ-JP:7806] (4 of 4) [CMA-3052/2016] mijksDr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa fof/k dk dksbZ lkjoku iz'u bl ekeys esa vUroZfyr ugha gS] bl izdkj U;kf;d fu.kZ; North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation ¼iwoksZDr½ esa izfrikfnr O;oLFkk rFkk vf/kfu;e&1923 dh /kkjk&30 ds vuqlkj ;g vihy iks"k.kh; ugha gksus ls [kkfjt gksus ;ksX; gSA rnuqlkj vihyk/khu fu.kZ; fnukad 19-01-2016 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 Mittal /22