[2026:RJ-JP:12546] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 246/2018 Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd., Through Manager, Office C-302, Sanghi Upasana Tower, Ahinsa Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur Having Its Local Office At Office No. 2, Third Floor, C-99, Singhvi Upasana Tower, Shubhash Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur Through Its Constituted Attorney ----Appellant Versus 1. Kailash Chand Meena S/o Shri Boduram, aged about 40 years, R/o Vill. Peeplod, Tehsil Shahpura, District Jaipur 2. Mahaveer Prasad Yadav S/o Hanuman Sahai, R/o Sherpura, Post Khori, Tehsil Shahpura, District Jaipur ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Virendra Agrawal, Adv. Ms. Anjali Assat, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gagan Sharma, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS Judgment / Order 25/03/2026 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 deZpkjh {kfriwfrZ vf/kfu;e] t;iqj ftyk&f}rh; t;iqj }kjk izdj.k E.C.C.N.F. No. 18/2016 esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 11-12-2017 ls O;fFkr gksdj is'k dh gS ftlds [2026:RJ-JP:12546] (2 of 4) [CMA-246/2018] ek/;e ls izR;FkhZ&vkgr dks nq?kZVuk esa ?kk;y gksus ij dqy 4]25]056@& :i;s e; 12 izfr'kr C;kt lfgr izfrdj fnyk;k gSA fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykFkhZ&chek dEiuh dk fuosnu gS fd ?kVuk fnukad 16-04-2014 dh gS] tcfd izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ fnukad 15-05-2014 dks vFkkZr vuqfpr o vLi"Vhd`r foyEc ls ntZ djk;h x;h gSA vkgr dSyk'k pUn] izR;FkhZ dze&2 egkohj ds ;gka fu;ksftr gks] ,slh dksbZ Bksl lk{; i=koyh ij ugha gS] vUr esa vihyk/khu fu.kZ; o vokMZ fof/k&fo:) o rF;ksa ds foijhr gksuk crkrs gq, mls vikLr fd;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA blds foijhr fo}ku vf/koDrk izR;FkhZ&nkosnkj dk fuosnu gS fd vihykFkhZ&chek dEiuh }kjk yh x;h vkifRr;ka rF;ksa ls lacaf/kr gSa] ftu ij fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk miyC/k lkexzh ij fopkj djus ds mijkUr fu.kZ; ikfjr fd;k gSA ^^vf/kfu;e&1923^^ dh /kkjk&30 ds izko/kkuksa ds vuqlkj fof/k dk lkjoku iz'u vUroZfyr gksus ij gh ;g vihy iks"k.kh; gS] pwafd bl ekeys esa fof/k dk dksbZ lkjoku iz'u vUroZfyr ugha gS] vr% ^^vf/kfu;e&1923^^ dh /kkjk&30 ds izko/kku rFkk 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 ;g vihy iks"k.kh; ugha gSA ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs. Smt. Sujatha (Supra) 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 [2026:RJ-JP:12546] (3 of 4) [CMA-246/2018] 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 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 ;|fi izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ [2026:RJ-JP:12546] (4 of 4) [CMA-246/2018] dfFkr nq?kZVuk ds djhc ,d ekg i'pkr ntZ djk;h x;h gS] ysfdu vkgr }kjk viuh lk{; ds ek/;e ls izR;FkhZ dze&2 egkohj ds ;gka fu;ksftr gksuk rFkk rRle; VªsDVj ds tqMs Fkzslj ij dk;Z djrs le; nq?kZVuk gksus ls dkfjr pksVksa ds ifj.kkeLo:i LFkk;h fu'kDrrk gksus dk dFku fd;k gSA fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk miyC/k lk{; o lkexzh ds vk/kkj ij vkgr dks izR;FkhZ dze&2 ds ;gka deZdkj ds :i esa fu;ksftr gksus o fu;kstudky ds nkSjku ;g nq?kZVuk ?kfVr gksuk fu.khZr fd;k gSA fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk i=koyh ij miyC/k egRoiw.kZ lk{; dks utjvankt dj viuk fu"d"kZ fn;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 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 11-12-2017 dh iqf"V djrs gq, ;g vihy [kkfjt dh tkrh gSaA 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 /34