10 June 2024


Judgments

High Court of Delhi

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Saroj Gautam & Ors

MANU/DE/4327/2022

04.11.2022

Labour and Industrial

A challenge to the order of a Commissioner can be made only on a substantial question of law

The Appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 30 of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, assailing the order passed by the learned Commissioner, whereby death compensation was awarded to Respondent Nos.1 and 2/claimants and the Appellant directed to deposit Rs.8,90,840 alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. with effect from 19th July, 2017 till realization.

In terms of Section 30 of the Act, a challenge to the order of a Commissioner can be made only on a substantial question of law. In this regard, the Supreme Court in North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation v. Sujatha has held that, the scope of an appeal under Section 30 of the Act to be limited to substantial questions of law, and that findings of facts proved either way are not to be likely interfered with.

It is not disputed by the Appellant that, the car in which the deceased was travelling on the date of the accident was insured with it. It is also not disputed that the insurance policy in question was valid and subsisting on the said date.

Though reliance is sought to be placed by the Appellant on the statement of co-passenger/Srishti Rustagi, as well as written statement of respondent No.3 filed before the MACT, this Court is of the opinion that the same are of no avail to the appellant in view of the specific averments made in the claim proceedings before the learned Commissioner by the claimants as well as admission by respondent No.3 in his written statement, to the effect that at the time of the accident, the deceased was employed with Respondent No.3. It is worthwhile to note that co-passenger/Srishti Rustagi was admittedly not examined in the proceedings before the learned Commissioner.

The contention that the employer-employee relationship between the deceased and Respondent No.3 is not established as Respondent No.3 is an uncle of the deceased, is specious and being meritless is rejected. The Appellant having failed to make out any case for interference, the impugned order is upheld. Appeal dismissed.

Tags : Compensation Direction Legality

Share :