Bombay High Court
THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.versusTIRUPATI POCHAYYA RAGHELA AND ANOTHER
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The appeal does not raise any substantial question of law and is dismissed.
Summary
The National Insurance Company Ltd. appealed against a judgment of the Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation, which had awarded Rs. 1,40,000 to the employee, Tirupati Pochayya Raghela, under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923. The insurer contended that the employee had not produced sufficient evidence to prove he was 45 years old at the time of the accident and that his monthly wages were Rs. 4,500. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the employee’s age and salary were stated in his pleadings and were not seriously contested by the employer. The Court held that there was no substantial question of law arising from these factual findings. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed without any order as to costs.
Issues considered
- Whether the employee satisfactorily proved his age of 45 years at the date of the accident for purposes of compensation under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923.
- Whether the employee adequately established his monthly wage of Rs. 4,500 at the relevant time.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- Employees’ Compensation
- Age of employee
- Wage proof
- Insurance claim
- Appellate jurisdiction
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:41653
IN THE JUDICATURE OF HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
921 FIRST APPEAL NO. 240 OF 2014
The National Insurance Company Ltd.
VERSUS
Tirupati Pochayya Raghela And Another
...
Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Prateek S. Jadhav h/f Mr. Pagare S. N.
...
CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.
Dated : September 09, 2026
PER COURT :-
1. The appellant-insurance company has filed the present appeal
challenging the judgment and order dated 26th August 2013, passed
by the learned Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation and Judge,
Labour Court, Nanded, in ECNFA No. 4 of 2012.
2. The learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 1,40,000/-
to respondent No. 1 (employee) towards the claim lodged under the
Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923.
3. The fact of employment and the accident are not in dispute. The
contention raised in the present appeal is that respondent No. 1 did
not lead cogent evidence to establish that he was 45 years old as on
the date of the accident and also did not lead any positive evidence to
arrive at the conclusion that his monthly wages were Rs. 4,500/- at the
relevant time.
4. As regards the age of respondent No. 1, he has stated that his
Page 1 of 2
921 FA 240-2014
age was 45 years at the time of the accident in the pleadings and
also in his examination-in-chief. Perusal of the judgment delivered by
the learned Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation reveals that
this aspect was not seriously disputed during the course of trial of
the claim application.
5. As regards the contention with respect to income, as stated
above, the fact of employment is not in dispute. The accident
occurred on 13.09.2011. The employer (respondent No. 2) has not
disputed that the salary of the employee (respondent No. 1) was Rs.
4,500/- per month. The statement regarding monthly salary made in
the examination-in-chief was not seriously contested, as can be seen
from the reasons recorded in the impugned judgment. Having regard
to the fact that the accident occurred in the year 2011, Rs. 4,500/-
appears to be a reasonable amount of salary drawn by an employee
working in a shop.
6. For the reasons recorded above, in the considered opinion of
this Court, the appeal does not give rise to any substantial question
of law. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed, with no order as to costs.
( ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. )
vj gawade/-.
Page 2 of 2
Checking your session…