Allahabad High Court
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.versusSURYA LAL AND OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
An appeal under Section 30 of the Employees' Compensation Act is not maintainable where the issues are purely factual, so the award stands.
Summary
United India Insurance Company appealed an award made by the Commissioner under the Employees' Compensation Act in favor of Surya Lal, a tanker driver who claimed 60% disability after a road accident. The claimant relied solely on a disability certificate and did not produce evidence of his income or a medical examination. The Commissioner accepted the certificate and assessed loss of earning capacity, which the insurer challenged as unsupported and illegal. The High Court examined whether an appeal under Section 30 of the Employees' Compensation Act is maintainable on such factual disputes. It held that Section 30 permits appeal only on a substantial question of law, and the matters raised were purely factual. Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal without interfering with the award.
Issues considered
- Whether an appeal under Section 30 of the Employees' Compensation Act is maintainable when the dispute involves only factual questions.
- Whether the Commissioner’s reliance on a disability certificate without corroborative evidence constitutes a legal error warranting interference.
Legislation cited
- Employees' Compensation Act — s. 30
Subjects
- Employees' Compensation Act
- Section 30
- workmen's compensation
- disability certificate
- evidentiary standards
- factual issues
- appeal dismissed
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1531 of 2008
United India Insurance Company Ltd.
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
Surya Lal And Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Amit Singh, V.C. Dixit
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Subhash Chandra Yadav, Surya Nath
Yadav
Court No. - 54
HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned counsel for respondent.
2. This appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 18.10.2008
passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation Act and Assistant
Labour Commissioner, Allahabad, in Case No. WCA/12/2006 (Shri Surilal
Vs. Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited and Others).
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent/claimant
alleged in his petition that he was employed as a driver of Tanker No. MH-
04-ML-1876, owned by opposite party Nos. 1 and 2. At about 5:00 p.m. on
04.09.2004, while driving the said tanker, it was knocked down by another
offending vehicle, resulting in serious injuries to him. As a result of the
accident, he sustained multiple fractures in his right leg, allegedly causing
60% disability. It was further submitted that the respondent/claimant neither
proved his income nor the disability certificate by producing the doctor who
had issued the same. The owner of the tanker, under which the respondent
was employed as a driver, did not appear in the proceedings, and the
proceedings against him proceeded ex parte, and there was no rebuttal of the
pleadings of the respondent/claimant, as the pleadings and evidence on
behalf of the claimant remained unrefuted due to absence of
respondent/owner. On behalf of the respondent/owner, the pleadings of the
claimant were treated as admitted evidence by the learned Court. It was
submitted that pleadings alone cannot be treated as evidence, which is
necessary to prove a fact. The respondent had not proved either his income
or his disability. The 60% disability was accepted by the learned Court
below only on the basis of the disability certificate issued by the doctor. On
FAFO No. 1531 of 2008
2
the basis of the said disability certificate, the learned Court below assessed
the loss of earning capacity at 60%, observing that such assessment would
not be improper. It was submitted that the said findings are per se illegal and
contrary to the basic principles of the law of evidence. Therefore, the finding
recorded by the learned Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation Act,
requires interference, and the award passed by him is liable to be set aside..
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the
disability certificate issued by the concerned Chief Medical Officer was filed
before the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation Act, in its original
form, and there was no rebuttal by the appellant. It is not the case of the
appellant that the said disability certificate was either forged or was not
issued by the competent authority. It was further submitted that the appellant
himself has not adduced any evidence contrary to the evidence or pleadings
of the respondents. Hence, the finding recorded by the learned
Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation Act, does not warrant any
interference.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned
judgment passed by the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation Act.
6. At the very outset, it is pertinent to mention that an appeal under Section
30 of the Employees' Compensation Act lies only when some substantial
question of law is involved. In the absence of any substantial question of
law, an appeal against the award does not lie. All the grounds raised by the
appellant involve pure questions of fact and, by no stretch of imagination,
constitute substantial questions of law. Hence, this Appellate Court is not
inclined either to enter into the merits of the case or to interfere with the
award passed by the Commissioner, Employees' Compensation Act.
7. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.
September 30, 2026
Mukesh
(Anil Kumar-X,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MUKESH SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…