[2026:RJ-JP:9123] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2665/2015 Gumanaram S/o Rambaxaram, R/o Bhichari Ka Bass, Tehsil Nawa, District Nagore, at present village Khoor, Tehsil Dantaramgarh, District Sikar (Raj.). ----Appellant Versus 1. Bhawarlal S/o Jeewanram, R/o Post Nalot, Tehsil Nawa, District Nagore (Raj.) (Registered owner tractor No. RJ 37 RA 2280). 2. The New India Insurance Company Ltd., through branch office Director, oppo Court, Jalan Bhawan, Sikar (Raj.) (Insurance Company tractor No. RJ 37 RA 2280) ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1832/2015 The New India Insurance Company Ltd., having its Registered & Head Office at 87, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Fort, Mumbai 40001 and having its Regional Office at Second Floor, South Block, Nehru Place Tonk Road, Jaipur, through its Constituent Attorney. ----Appellant Versus 1. Gumanaram S/o Rambaxaram, R/o Bhichari Ka Bass, Tehsil Nawa, District Nagore, at present village Khood, Tehsil Dantaramgarh, District Sikar (Raj.). 2. Bhawarlal S/o Jeewanram, R/o Post Nalot, Tehsil Nawa, District Nagore (Raj.). ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Akshat Chaudhary, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Nishtha Jain, Adv. for Mr. Sanjay Singhal, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS Judgment / Order 27/02/2026 fo}ku U;k;ky; vk;qDr deZpkjh {kfriwfrZ vf/kfu;e] lhdj }kjk izdj.k W.C.C./N.F. No. 21/2010 esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 06-04-2015 ls O;fFkr gksdj /kkjk 30 deZdkj {kfriwfrZ vf/kfu;e] 1923 ¼vkxs [2026:RJ-JP:9123] (2 of 4) [CMA-2665/2015] ^^vf/kfu;e&1923^^ dgk tkosxk½ ds rgr nkosnkjksa dh vksj ls izfrdj jkf'k esa c<+ksrjh gsrq vihy la[;k 2665@2015 rFkk vokMZ dks vikLr fd;s tkus gsrq vihykFkhZ&chek dEiuh dh vksj ls vihy la[;k 1832@2015 izLrqr dh x;h gSaA mDr nksuksa vihy ,d gh fu.kZ; ls lacaf/kr gksdj ,d gh vkns'k ds ek/;e ls fuLrkfjr dh tk jgh gSaA vihyk/khu fu.kZ; ds ek/;e ls vkosnd@vkgr xqekukjke ds i{k esa 2]91]475@& :i;s izfrdj 12 izfr'kr okf"kZd C;kt lfgr fu;kstd&izR;FkhZ dze 1 rFkk vihykFkhZ&chek dEiuh ls fnyk;s tkus dk vkns'k fn;k x;k gSA fo}ku vf/koDrk nkosnkj dk fuosnu gS fd izfrdj jkf'k dh x.kuk djrs le; vkgr dh vk; dks leqfpr :i ls fopkj esa ugha fy;k x;k gS] fnyk;h x;h jkf'k vi;kZIr gS] tcfd fo}ku vihykFkhZ&chek dEiuh dk fuosnu gS fd muds }kjk tks chek ikWfylh tkjh dh x;h Fkh] mlds vuqlkj vkgr chfer ugha Fkk] bl dkj.k ls vihyk/khu fu.kZ; vikLr gksus ;ksX; gSA ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk U;kf;d fu.kZ; North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs. Smt. Sujatha (2019) 11 SCC 514 esa ;g O;oLFkk izfrikfnr dh x;h gS fd tc rd fof/k dk lkjoku iz'u vUroZfyr ugha gks] rc rd ^^vf/kfu;e&1923^^ dh /kkjk&30 ds izko/kkuksa ds vuqlkj vihy iks"k.kh; ugha gS] bl fu.kZ; ds lqlaxr 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 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 [2026:RJ-JP:9123] (3 of 4) [CMA-2665/2015] 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. orZeku ekeys esa fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk i{kdkjku dh vksj ls izLrqr lk{; ij fopkj djus ds mijkUr izfrdj jkf'k dh x.kuk dh x;h gSA chek dEiuh dh ;g vkifRr jgh Fkh fd vkgr ikWfylh ds rgr doj ugha gksrk gS] ysfdu mlds nksuksa iz'uksa ij miyC/k lk{; ds vuqlkj fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; us lE;d :i ls fopkj dj viuk fu"d"kZ fn;k gS] fn;k x;k fu"d"kZ lk{; ds vHkko esa gks vFkok miyC/k egRoiw.kZ lk{; dks utjvankt djrs gq, euekuk fu.kZ; fn;k gks] ,slh fLFkfr vfHkys[k ij ugha gSA 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 mijksDr nksuksa vihysa iks"k.kh; ugha gksus ls [kkfjt gksus ;ksX; gSaA [2026:RJ-JP:9123] (4 of 4) [CMA-2665/2015] rnuqlkj vihyk/khu fu.kZ; fnukad 06-04-2015 dh iqf"V djrs gq, mDr nksuksa vihysa [kkfjt dh tkrh gSaA fopkj.k U;k;ky; dk vfHkys[k ;fn izkIr gks j[kk gS rks bl fu.kZ; dh izfr ds lkFk iqu% izsf"kr fd;k tkosA (UMA SHANKER VYAS),J Mittal /12-13