[2026:RJ-JP:8781] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1794/2021 Bahadur Singh S/o Shri Kamal Singh, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Village Gadhera, Tehsil Kumher, Distt. Bharatpur. ----Appellant Versus 1. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, Branch Office-21 Station Road, Nai Mandi Bharatpur. (Raj.) 2. Shyam Singh S/o Shri Hukam Singh, R/o Village Gadhera, Tehsil Kumher, Distt. Bharatpur. (Raj.) ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Himmat Singh Bikarwar, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Raaj Pal Chaudhary, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS Judgment / Order 25/02/2026 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; deZpkjh {kfriwfrZ vk;qDr] Hkjriqj }kjk izdj.k E.C.A.(N.F.)/D-78/2012 esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 23-09-2020 ls O;fFkr gksdj is'k dh gS ftlds ek/;e ls nkosnkj dk Dyse [kkfjt fd;k x;kA fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykFkhZ dk fuosnu gS fd fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk vR;f/kd rduhfd n`f"Vdks.k viukrs gq, lk{; ds foijhr tkdj vihyk/khu fu.kZ; ikfjr fd;k gS] nkosnkj rFkk foi{kh la[;k&1 ds chp deZpkjh rFkk fu;kstd dk laca/k gksuk Li"V gS] vUr esa vihyk/khu fu.kZ; dks vikLr dj ekeyk fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; dks izfrizsf"kr djus vFkok izfrdj jkf'k blh U;k;ky; }kjk fnyk;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA [2026:RJ-JP:8781] (2 of 4) [CMA-1794/2021] blds foijhr fo}ku vf/koDrk izR;FkhZ&chek dEiuh dk fuosnu gS fd nkosnkj cgknqj flag }kjk vius vkidks ';keflag dk deZpkjh gksuk crkrs gq, fopkj.k U;k;ky; esa nkok ;kfpdk izLrqr dh x;h FkhA nkosnkj] ';keflag dk deZpkjh ugha Fkk] vr% ,slh fLFkfr eas chek dEiuh dk dksbZ nkf;Ro ugha curk gSA ;g Hkh fuosnu fd;k fd ^^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 yh x;h vkifRr o iz'u rF;ksa ds laca/k esa gS rFkk 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 ikfjr U;kf;d fu.kZ; 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 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 [2026:RJ-JP:8781] (3 of 4) [CMA-1794/2021] 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 nkosnkj }kjk ;g vfHkdfFkr fd;k gS fd og foi{kh la[;k&1 dk deZpkjh Fkk vkSj foi{kh la[;k&1 ds VªsDVj vkj-ts-05@vkj-,- 3589 ij ?kVuk ds le; pkyd FkkA fopkj.k ds mijkUr ;g izdV gqvk gS fd mijksDr okgu foi{kh ';keflag ds LokfeRo dk u gksdj ';keflag ds ekrk&firk jkeorh rFkk gqdqeflag ds LokfeRo dk gS vkSj mlh :i esa chek dEiuh }kjk ikWfylh tkjh dh x;h gSA gqdqeflag rFkk jkeorh dks i{kdkj ds :i esa la;ksftr ugha fd;k x;k gS rFkk nkosnkj mijksDr nksuksa dk deZpkjh jgk gks] ,slk Hkh vfHkdFku ugha gSA vr% fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk miyC/k lkexzh ij fopkj djus ds mijkUr viuk fu"d"kZ nsrs gq, Dyse ;kfpdk [kkfjt dh 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 fn;k x;k fu"d"kZ lk{; ds vHkko esa gks vkSj bl dkj.k ls euekuk o vuqfpr 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 [2026:RJ-JP:8781] (4 of 4) [CMA-1794/2021] rnuqlkj vihyk/khu fu.kZ; fnukad 23-09-2020 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 /83