[2026:RJ-JP:8719] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 6705/2017 United India Insurance Company Ltd. Through Its Manager, Regional Office, Sahara Chamber, Tonk Road, Jaipur. ----Appellant Versus 1. Shriram Jat S/o Shri Kaluram Jat, Aged about 44 Years, R/o Kanwarpura, Tehsil Shrimadhopur, Distt. Sikar Raj. 2. Bhairuram S/o Shri Hanumanram, Aged about 51 Years, R/o Nahron Ki Dhani Rayal, Tehsil Shrimadhopur, Distt. Sikar Raj. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sandeep Jain, Adv. For Respondent(s) : None Present. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS Judgment / Order 25/02/2026 vihykFkhZ&chek daiuh dh vksj ls ;g vihy fo}ku U;k;ky; vk;qDr deZpkjh {kfriwfrZ vf/kfu;e] t;iqj ftyk kk t;iqj }kjk izdj.k ECCNF-460/2011 esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 05-10-2017 ls O;fFkr gksdj is'k dh gS] ftlds ek/;e ls izR;FkhZ@nkosnkj Jhjke tkV ds i{k esa dqy 2]17]644@& :i;s izfrdj 12 izfr'kr C;kt lfgr fnyk;s tkus dk vkns'k ikfjr fd;k x;kA izR;FkhZ dh vksj ls dksbZ mifLFkr ughaA fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykFkhZ&chek daiuh dk fuosnu gS fd vihykFkhZ dh vksj ls ek= VªsDVj pkyd dh tksf[ke ds laca/k esa gh izhfe;e fy;k x;k Fkk tcfd vkgr Jhjke tkV rRle; VªsDVj ls tqMh Fkszlj ij deZpkjh ds :i esa dk;Zjr Fkk] vr% chek daiuh dk dksbZ nkf;Ro izfrdj [2026:RJ-JP:8719] (2 of 4) [CMA-6705/2017] jkf'k esa ugha gSA ;g Hkh fuosnu fd;k fd ?kVuk fnukad 09-03-2011 dh gS ftlds laca/k esa jkstukepk fjiksVZ 06-06-2011 dks feF;k vk/kkjksa ij ntZ djok;h x;h gS] ysfdu bu lc rF;ksa dks utj vUnkt dj rF;ksa o fof/k ds foijhr tkdj vihyk/khu fu.kZ; ikfjr fd;k gS] tks vikLr gksus ;ksX; gSA fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; o vfHkys[k ds voyksdu ls Li"V gS fd vihykFkhZ@chek daiuh }kjk HkS:jke@izR;FkhZ la[;k&2 ds VªsDVj ds laca/k esa izn'kZ&6 chek ikWfylh tkjh djrs gq, VªsDVj ij dk;Zjr deZpkjh dh tksf[ke dk chek fd;k x;k gS] vr% ek= pkyd dk gh chek gks] ,slh fLFkfr o rdZ Lohdkj ;ksX; ugha gSA miyC/k lk{; o lkexzh ds vuqlkj fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk ;g fu"d"kZ fn;k x;k gS fd vkgr@nkosnkj rRle; HkS:jke ds ;gka fu;ksftr deZpkjh Fkk vkSj fu;kstu dky esa ;g nq?kZVuk ?kfVr gqbZ 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 vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k gS fd tc rd fof/k dk dksbZ lkjoku iz'u varoZfyr ugha gks rc rd vf/kfu;e&1923 dh /kkjk&30 ds izko/kkuksa ds vuqlkj vihy iks"k.kh; ugha gSA ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr U;kf;d fu.kZ; North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation (Supra) ds iSjk la[;k&9] 10] 11 rFkk 12 lqlaxr gS] tks 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 [2026:RJ-JP:8719] (3 of 4) [CMA-6705/2017] 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. tgka rd ?kVuk ds laca/k esa jkstukepk fjiksVZ foyac ls ntZ djkus dk iz'u gS] ;g fo"k; Hkh rF;ksa ds laca/k esa vkSj ml ij Hkh fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk lE;d :i ls fopkj fd;k x;k gSA orZeku ekeys esa fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk fn;k x;k fu.kZ; lk{; ds vHkko esa gks vFkok egRoiw.kZ lk{; 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 [2026:RJ-JP:8719] (4 of 4) [CMA-6705/2017] ugha gSA fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk tks fu"d"kZ fn;k x;k gS] og iw.kZr% fof/klEer gSA pwafd bl ekeys esa fof/k dk dksbZ iz'u vUroZfyr ugha gS] vr% ;g vihy [kkfjt gksus ;ksX; gSA mijksDr foospukuqlkj vihyk/khu fu.kZ; fnukad 05-10-2017 dh iqf"V djrs gq, ;g vihy [kkfjt dh tkrh gSaA LFkxu izkFkZuk i= Hkh mijksDrkuqlkj [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA 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 /32