[2026:RJ-JP:12267] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4610/2018 Puranmal S/o Shri Ratnarambavri, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Plot No. 19, Ganpativihar, Harnathpura, Ps-Jhotwara, Jaipur And At Present R/o Dholimandi, Chomu, District Jaipur (Raj.) ----Appellant Versus 1. Shiv Charan Gupta S/o Shri Prabhu Narayan Gupta, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Plot No. 64, Nandgaon Colony, Lakshmi Nagar, Niwaru Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur (Raj.) (Employer And Registered Owner Of Maruti Vehicle Rj-14-Ce-9766) 2. The New India Assurance Company Limited, Regional Office, Nehru Place, Tonk Road, Jaipur Through Regional Manager, (Insurance Company Of Maruti Vehicle Rj-14-Ce-9766) ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sandeep Mathur, Adv. Mr. Kapil Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Praveen Kumar Jain, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS Judgment / Order 24/03/2026 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 t;iqj }kjk izdj.k E.C.C.N.F. No. 1043/2018 esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 16-07-2018 ls O;fFkr [2026:RJ-JP:12267] (2 of 4) [CMA-4610/2018] gksdj is'k dh gS ftlds ek/;e ls vihykFkhZ&nkosnkj dks dqy 1]18]236@& :i;s e; 12 izfr'kr C;kt lfgr izfrdj fnyk;k gSA fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykFkhZ&nkosnkj dk fuosnu gS fd LFkk;h fu'kDrrk izek.k i= ds vuqlkj vihykFkhZ ds 22 izfr'kr LFkk;h fu'kDrrk ekuh x;h gSA ;g Hkh fuosnu fd;k fd nkosnkj pkyd ds :i esa fu;qDr Fkk vkSj mldh Qhej cksu esa vfLFkHkax ds dkj.k ls mlds LFkk;h fu'kDrrk 50 izfr'kr ls vf/kd ekuh tkuh pkfg, Fkh] tcfd vihyk/khu fu.kZ; ds ek/;e ls ek= 25 izfr'kr LFkk;h fu'kDrrk ekurs gq, izfrdj fnyk;k x;k gS] tks vi;kZIr gSA bl izdkj ;Fkksfpr :i ls izfrdj jkf'k c<k;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA blds foijhr fo}ku vf/koDrk izR;FkhZ dk fuosnu gS fd vihykFkhZ }kjk fy;s x;s vk/kkj rF;ksa ds laca/k esa 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 ;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 [2026:RJ-JP:12267] (3 of 4) [CMA-4610/2018] 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 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 [2026:RJ-JP:12267] (4 of 4) [CMA-4610/2018] xzg.k dh tk ldrh gSA orZeku ekeys esa dqy feykdj izfrdj jkf'k dh ek=k o LFkk;h fu'kDrrk dh x.kuk ds laca/k esa fookn gS tks rF;ksa dk fo"k; gS] ftl ij fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; us nksuksa i{kksa dh lk{; ij fopkj djus ds mijkUr vihyk/khu fu.kZ; ikfjr fd;k gS] 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 16-07-2018 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 /19