Allahabad High Court
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.versusSMT. USHA DEVI AND OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The appeal is not maintainable as it raises only questions of fact; therefore, it is dismissed and the original compensation award is upheld.
Summary
The Oriental Insurance Co. appealed a compensation award of Rs.3,49,923 granted by the Employees' Compensation Commissioner to the widow of a deceased bus driver, alleging misappreciation of evidence and procedural errors. The appellant raised seven substantive questions, including the existence of an employer-employee relationship, the nature of the injury, the correct age factor, compliance with Rule 28 of the Workmen Compensation Rules, liability of the insurer despite the bus operating without a permit, and the award of interest. The respondents contended that all these matters were factual in nature and not amenable to review under Section 30 of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923. The High Court, relying on Supreme Court precedents, held that the issues were indeed questions of fact and therefore could not be entertained in the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the original award upheld.
Issues considered
- Whether the finding of the learned Commissioner that there was relationship of employer and employee between the U.P.S.R.T.C. owner of the Bus and the deceased is illegal and based on mis‑appreciation of evidence?
- Whether the finding of the learned Commissioner that the injuries which caused the death of the deceased arose during the course of employment?
- Whether the learned commissioner has acted illegally in applying the factor corresponding to age 34 instead of age 36?
- Whether the judgment passed by the learned commissioner is sustainable in the eyes of law without complying with rule 28 of the Workmen Compensation Rules 1924?
- Whether the learned commissioner has erred in law in fastening liability upon the appellant despite the fact that the owner of the Bus has committed breach of insurance policy inasmuch as the Bus was plied without valid permit?
- Whether the learned commissioner has erred in law in awarding interest one month after the date of accident?
- Whether the learned commissioner has acted illegally in fastening liability upon the appellant to pay interest despite the fact that the appellant was impleaded by the claimant/respondent in November 2010?
Legislation cited
- Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 — s. 30
- Workmen Compensation Rules, 1924 — s. 28
Subjects
- Employees' Compensation
- Employer-Employee Relationship
- Fact vs Law
- Section 30 Appeal
- Workmen Compensation Rules
- Interest Award
- Insurance Liability
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 3142 of 2012
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
Smt. Usha Devi And Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Subash Chandra Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Anirudh Kumar Misra, Shambhavi
Nandan, Shashi Kant Upadhyay
Court No. - 54
HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.
1. Shri Subash Chandra Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant-
Insurance Company and Shri Shashi Kant Upadhyay, learned counsel for
respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 and Shri Ashutosh Mishra holding brief of Shri
Anirudh Kumar Misra, learned counsel for the respondents are present.
2. This appeal arises out of the judgment and award dated 30.5.2012
passed by Employees Compensation Commissioner and Deputy Labour
Commissioner, Gorakhpur in Case No.WCC 5/2005 (Smt. Usha Devi &
Ors. vs. U.P.S.R.T.C. & Ors.) whereby the Labour Commissioner has
awarded Rs.3,49,923/- alongwith 12% interest as compensation to the
claimant/respondent.
3. Briefly stated, the respondent no.1 filed a claim petition before
the Employees' Compensation Commissioner seeking compensation on
account of death of her husband in an accident occurred on on 10.7.2004.
The husband of the claimant was working as a driver of bus No. UP 53 T
2873. Said claim petition was allowed by Employees' Compensation
Commissioner vide its impugned judgement and an amount of
Rs.3,49,923/- was awarded.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted
that Employees' Compensation Commissioner has failed to appreciate the
available evidence on record and has recorded findings against the settled
laws as well as the available facts. It was submitted that respondent had
miserably failed to prove relationship of employer and employee between
FAFO No. 3142 of 2012
2
the owner of the bus in question and claimant respondent. Learned
counsel for the appellant has framed the following substantial question of
law in this appeal:-
"I. Whether the finding of the learned Commissioner that there was relationship of
employer and employee between the U.P.S.R.T.C. owner of the Bus and the deceased
is illegal and based on miss-appreciation of evidence?
II. Whether the finding of the learned Commissioner that the injuries which caused the
death of the deceased arose during the course of employment?
III. Whether the learned commissioner has acted illegally in applying the factor
corresponding to age 34 instead of age 36?
IV. Whether the judgment passed by the learned commissioner is sustainable in the
eyes of law without complying with rule 28 of the Workmen Compensation Rules
1924?
V. Whether the learned commissioner has erred in law in fastening the liability upon
the appellant despite the fact that the owner of the Bus has committed breach of
insurance policy inasmuch as the Bus was plied without valid permit?
VI. Whether the learned commissioner has erred in law in awarding interest one
month after the date of accident?
VII. Whether the learned commissioner has acted illegally in fastening the liability
upon the appellant to pay interest despite the fact that the appellant has been
impleaded by the claimant/respondent in November, 2010?"
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-claimant submitted that
this appeal as such is not maintainable because all the questions raised by
the appellant are questions of fact and they do not constitute substantive
questions of law. All the issues are disputed questions of fact which were
appreciated, determined and thereby decided by the Employees'
Compensation Commissioner. The issues of fact decided by Employees'
Compensation Commissioner cannot be challenged in an appeal under
Section 30 of Employees' Compensation Act, 1923. If any such appeal
raising questions of fact is filed, the same is liable to be dismissed as held
by Hon'ble Supreme Court in North East Karnataka Road Transport
FAFO No. 3142 of 2012
3
Corporation vs. Smt. Sujata 2018 (4) TAC 673 (SC) and Golla
Rajanna etc. etc. vs. Divisional Manager and Another 2017 (1) TAC
259 (SC).
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
7. It is very much evident that the grounds of appeal do not consist any
substantive questions of law. Questions regarding the relationship
between the employer and employee as well as injuries causing death of
the deceased are purely questions of fact and cannot be entertained in an
appeal filed under Section 30 of Employees' Compensation Act.
8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in North East Karnataka Road Transport
Corporation (supra) held that such issues are essentially the questions of
fact. Once they are proved either way, the findings they are on record, are
the findings of fact. Similarly in Golla Rajanna (supra), it was held that
determination of nature of injury is purely a question of fact.
9. Hence, this appeal, which is based on purely a question of fact, is not
maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
10. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed and the impugned judgment and
award is upheld.
(Anil Kumar-X,J.)
September 11, 2026
SK
Digitally signed by :-
SUSHEEL KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…