[2026:RJ-JP:9372] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4225/2017 Regional Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd., M.i. Road, Jaipur Raj. ----Appellant Versus 1. Smt. Manbhari Devi W/o Shri Mangilal, aged about 46 years, R/o Village Machda, Teh. Amer, Distt. Jaipur Raj. 2. Ravi S/o Shri Mangilal, aged about 24 years, R/o Village Machda, Teh. Amer, Distt. Jaipur Raj. 3. Dinesh S/o Shri Mangilal, aged about 23 years, R/o Village Machda, Teh. Amer, Distt. Jaipur Raj. 4. Murari S/o Shri Mangilal, aged about 21 years, R/o Village Machda, Teh. Amer, Distt. Jaipur Raj. 5. Pinki D/o Shri Mangilal, aged about 19 years, R/o Village Machda, Teh. Amer, Distt. Jaipur Raj. 6. Laxmi Devi W/o Shri Lalaram Meena, Village And Post Needad, Ward No. 70, Near Vishwakarma Industrial Area, Teh. And Distt. Jaipur ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. V.P. Mathur, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ram Prasad Sharma, Adv. Mr. Deepak Chaudhary, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS Judgment / Order 05/03/2026 vihykFkhZ&chek dEiuh 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 deZdkj {kfriwfrZ vf/kfu;e] t;iqj ftyk&f}rh; t;iqj }kjk izdj.k E.C.C.F. No. 306/2011 esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 09-05-2017 ls O;fFkr gksdj is'k dh gS ftlds ek/;e ls izR;FkhZ la[;k&1 [2026:RJ-JP:9372] (2 of 4) [CMA-4225/2017] yxk;r 5&nkosnkjku ¼vkxs ^^nkosnkjku^^ dgk tkosxk½ dks dqy 4]67]250@& :i;s e; 12 izfr'kr C;kt lfgr izfrdj fnyk;k gSA fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykFkhZ&chek dEiuh ;g ;g vkifRr jgh gS fd oDr ?kVuk e`rd ekaxhyky] izR;FkhZ dze&6 ds ;gka fu;ksftr gks rFkk ml nkSjku nq?kZVuk gqbZ gS] ;g rF; Li"V :i ls izekf.kr ugha gSA ?kVuk ds le; e`rd ds ikl oS/k pkyu vuqKfIr ugha Fkk] vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa e`rd ds i{k esa dksbZ izfrdj jkf'k dk vokMZ tkjh fd;k tkuk mfpr ugha Fkk] vihyk/khu fu.kZ; dks rF;ksa o fof/k ds foijhr gksuk crkrs gq, vikLr fd;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA izR;FkhZ dze&6@okgu Lokeh@fu;ksDrk dks uksfVl rkehy ugha gq, gSa] ysfdu fo}ku vf/koDrk nkosnkjku dk ;g vk{ksi jgk gS fd vihykFkhZ&chek dEiuh }kjk tks vkifRr;ka mBk;h gSa] mlds vuqlkj bl ekeys esa fof/k dk dksbZ lkjoku iz'u vUroZfyr ugha gSA ^^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; gS] bl izdkj vihy [kkfjt fd;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA lquk x;k] izLrqr rdksZa ij fopkj fd;k x;kA ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs. Smt. Sujatha (2019) 11 SCC 514 esa izfrikfnr O;oLFkk ds vuqlkj ^^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; gS] mDr 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 [2026:RJ-JP:9372] (3 of 4) [CMA-4225/2017] 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. orZeku ekeys esa izR;{kn'khZ xokg rFkk vU; lk{; ds vk/kkj ij ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k gS fd nq?kZVuk ds le; e`rd ekaxhyky] izR;FkhZ dze&6 ds VªsDVj ij deZdkj ds :i esa fu;ksftr Fkk vkSj VªsDVj esa iRFkj Hkjus ds nkSjku mldh e`R;q gqbZ gSA ;g ckr lgh gS fd ?kVuk ds le; e`rd ds ikl oS/k rFkk izHkkoh pkyu vuqKk&i= ugha Fkk] ijUrq e`rd dh ykijokgh vkfn dk rF; vlaxr gSA fo}ku vf/koDrk&chek dEiuh dh vksj ls tks vkifRr;ka mBk;h gSa] os rF;ksa ds laca/k esa gS ftu ij fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk miyC/k lkexzh ij fopkj djus ds mijkUr fu.kZ; ikfjr fd;k gS] mijksDr fu.kZ; miyC/k egRoiw.kZ lk{; dks utjvankt dj fn;k x;k gks vFkok tks rF; vfHkys[k ij Fks gh ugha] mu ij fopkj djus ds mijkUr 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 [2026:RJ-JP:9372] (4 of 4) [CMA-4225/2017] 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 09-05-2017 dh iqf"V djrs gq, ;g vihy [kkfjt dh tkrh gSa] LFkxu izkFkZuk i= ;fn yafcr gS rks og Hkh mDr izdkj ls vLohdkj fd;k tkrk gSA fopkj.k U;k;ky; dk vfHkys[k ;fn izkIr gks j[kk gS rks bl vkns'k dh izfr ds lkFk fopkj.k U;k;ky; dks izsf"kr fd;k tkosA (UMA SHANKER VYAS),J Mittal /24