# The New India Assurance Co. Ltd v. Smt. Guddi @ Sarojni & Anr

- **Citation:** (2023) 3 ILRA 1130
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-12-22
- **Case number:** FAFO No. 2691 of 2004
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/the-new-india-assurance-co-ltd-v-smt-guddi-sarojni-anr-49217
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Civil Law - The Workmen's Compensation
Act, 1923 - Section 30, - Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988, Section - 167 - Appeal - insurance
company Challenged the Award - Accident -
deceased was employed as cleaner on a insured
vehicle and dies during course of employment -
maintainability of claim petition - just because
another vehicle is involved in the accident will
the
claim
petition
before
Workman
Compensation
Commissioner
be
not
maintainable - said question raised by insurance
company is answered by the legislation itself
under section 167 of MV Act, - count finds that,
Commissioner cannot be said to have gone
beyond his jurisdiction - substantial question of
law - held, all the substantial question of law
framed in the appeal are questions of facts and
the finding of the Commissioner on the said
issues are not perverse - High Court cannot
enter into the arena of facts unless they are
proved to be perverse - therefore, this appeal
fails and is dismissed. (Para -6, 11, 12, 13)

Appeal Dismissed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

1130 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
original suit number 469 of 1975 that the
original defendant was person of unsound
mind doing the proceedings in that original
suit. The record of the lower court file also
shows that no steps were taken by the
original
plaintiff
for
appointment
of
guardian ad litem of the insane original
defendant and the proceedings were done
by the court below without appointing such
a guardian. When the original defendant
became insane during the proceedings, all
the powers of attorney, if any, executed by
him lost its legal significance.

On
the
basis
of
above
discussion, I am of the considered view
that the Court below committed illegality
by completely ignoring of provisions of
law contained in order 32 Rule 15 of the
Civil Procedure Code in commencing the
proceedings and passing the impugned
judgment and decree without appointing
the Guardian of the original defendant
who was a person of sound mind at the
time
during
the
pendency
of
the
proceedings in original suit before him.
The point for determination number three
is answered accordingly."

12. No exception can be taken to the
reasoning or the analysis of the learned
appellate court in the impugned order. The
impugned order is liable to be affirmed and
the appeal fails.

13. The instant appeal is dismissed.
----------
(2023) 3 ILRA 1130
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.12.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA
THAKER, J.
FAFO No. 2691 of 2004

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
 ...Appellant
Versus
Smt. Guddi @ Sarojni & Anr.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Ashok Kumar Srivastava, Sri Sayed Ali
Murtaza

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Sanjay Kumar

Civil Law - The Workmen's Compensation
Act, 1923 - Section 30, - Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988, Section - 167 - Appeal - insurance
company Challenged the Award - Accident -
deceased was employed as cleaner on a insured
vehicle and dies during course of employment -
maintainability of claim petition - just because
another vehicle is involved in the accident will
the
claim
petition
before
Workman
Compensation
Commissioner
be
not
maintainable - said question raised by insurance
company is answered by the legislation itself
under section 167 of MV Act, - count finds that,
Commissioner cannot be said to have gone
beyond his jurisdiction - substantial question of
law - held, all the substantial question of law
framed in the appeal are questions of facts and
the finding of the Commissioner on the said
issues are not perverse - High Court cannot
enter into the arena of facts unless they are
proved to be perverse - therefore, this appeal
fails and is dismissed. (Para -6, 11, 12, 13)

Appeal Dismissed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

1. C. Manjammu Vs Divisional Manager, New
India Assurance Comp. Ltd. (2022 ACJ 2661),

2.
North East Karnataka Road
Transport
Corporation Vs Smt. Sujata ( Civil Appeal No.
7470/2009 Decided on Dt. 02.11.2018),

3. ESIC Vs S. Prasad (FAFO No. 1070/1993
decided on Dt. 26.10.2017),
3 All. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Guddi @ Sarojni & Anr.
1131
4. Golla Rajanna Etc. Etc. Vs Divisional Manager
& anr. ( 2017 1i) TAC 259 SC),

5. Shahajahan & anr. Vs M/s Shri Ram Gen.
Insurance Co. Ltd. & anr. (2021 (4) TAC 687
SC).

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal
Jayendra Thaker, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
appellant.

2. By way of this appeal, The New
India Assurance Company Limited has
challenged the award dated 23.8.2004
passed
by
Workmen's
Compensation
Commissioner,
Assistant
Labour
Commissioner, Kanpur Region, Kanpur in
Case No.WCA 121 of 2003 awarding
compensation of Rs.211790/-with interest
at the rate of 6%.

3. The brief facts leading to the
litigation as culled out from the judgment
are that a claim was filed by the claimants
claiming compensation for the loss of their
breadwinner who admittedly was a cleaner
on the vehicle owned by the the respondent
-
owner
and
on
the
fateful
date
i.e.22.5.2003 the vehicle met with an
accident. A claim petition was filed before
the
Workmen's
Compensation
Commissioner, Kanpur claiming a sum of
Rs.4,23,580/- with 12% rate of interest.

4. The respondent no.1 has admitted
the fact that the deceased was employed
with him and the vehicle was insured with
the insurance company. After elaborate
evidence
being
laid
the
learned
Commissioner awarded the award in favour
of the claimant. I have even perused the
Annexure No.2 of the investigating officer
but nowhere it has been mentioned that the
vehicle was not insured. A private
investigation was never examined. Hence,
the same could have not been relied. The
FIR is very elaborate the insured truck was
involved in the accident. All these being
questions of facts have been considered by
the Court below.

5. On perusal of memo of appeal, this
Court finds that following substantial
questions of law have been framed by the
appellant:

"i) Whether in view of the law
that the deceased motorcyclist being a
"Third Party" vis-a-vis the offending truck
no.
HR-38
C-4849,
the
claimant
/
respondent no. 1 had the remedy of filing a
claim petition under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act before the concerned
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has the
learned
Commissioner
erred
in
entertaining the present petition under the
provisions of the Workmens' Compensation
Act merely because the deceased was
allegedly employed as a cleaner on the
insured truck at the relevant time ?

ii) Whether in view of the
admitted fact that neither the insured truck
no. UP-70 D-9927 was involved in the
accident nor the accident had occurred due
to the use of the insured truck, has the
learned Commissioner erred in fastening
the
liability
to
pay
the
assessed
compensation on the appellant insurance
company, merely because the deceased was
allegedly employed on the insured truck at
the relevant time ?

iii) Whether in view of the fact
that the opposite party / respondent no. 2
i.e. the alleged employer had not appeared
on the witness stand before the learned
Commissioner
nor
the
claimant
/
respondent
no.
1
could
lead
any
1132 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
documentary evidence in support of her
contentions regarding the employment and
income of the deceased, has the learned
Commissioner
erred
in
ignoring
the
evidence
of
the
appellant
insurance
company that the deceased was not an
employee of the aforesaid opposite party /
respondent no. 2 ?

6. The facts narrated above in nutshell
will have to evaluated in view of the
judgments of the Apex Court in C.
Manjammu V. Divisional Manager, New
India
Assurance
Company
Limited
reported in 2022 ACJ 2661.The finding of
facts are said to be perverse where no
evidence is adduced by the party in whose
favour
decision
is
penned.
The
commissioner has considered evidence led
by the claimants as well as the evidence led
by the insurance company. The findings are
not such which can be said to be perverse.
Just because another vehicle is involved in
the accident will the claim petition before
Workman Compensation Commissioner be
not maintainable. The said question raised
by the insurance is answered by the
legislation itself and Section 167 of the
Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 gives the option
to the claimants to claim compensation
under either of the Acts. In our case the
Commissioner cannot be said to have gone
beyond his jurisdiction. The question no.2
is answered in question itself first the
deceased was held to be employed on the
insured truck and then he is submitted that
other owner of other vehicle is not party
and the liability would be that of the
insurance company. Issue no.3 is a finding
of fact and in view of the decision of Apex
Court in C. Manjammu (supra) this Court
cannot delve into the same.

7. At the outset, it is relevant to discuss
the scope of this Court to entertain appeal
against
the
award
of
Workmen's
Compensation Commissioner.

8. The Apex Court in Civil Appeal
No.7470 of 2009 North East Karnataka
Road Transport Corporation Vs. Smt.
Sujatha decided on 2.11.2018 has held as
under :

"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 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 aforementioned 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 findings of fact."

9. The Apex Court further went on to
hold as under :

"15. Such appeal is then heard on
the question of admission with a view to
find out as to whether it involves any
3 All. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Guddi @ Sarojni & Anr.
1133
substantial question of law or not. Whether
the appeal involves a substantial question
of law or not depends upon the facts of
each case and needs an examination by the
High Court. If the substantial question of
law arises, the High Court would admit the
appeal for final hearing on merit else
would dismiss in limini with reasons that it
does not involve any substantial question/s
of law.

16. Now coming to the facts of
this case, we find that the appeal before the
High Court did not involve any substantial
question of law on the material questions
set out above. In other words, in our view,
the Commissioner decided all the material
questions arising in the case properly on
the basis of evidence adduced by the
parties
and
rightly
determined
the
compensation payable to the respondent. It
was, therefore, rightly affirmed by the High
Court on facts.

17. In this view of the matter, the
findings being concurrent findings of fact
of the two courts below are binding on this
Court. Even otherwise, we find no good
ground to call for any interference on any
of the factual findings. None of the factual
findings are found to be either perverse or
arbitrary or based on no evidence or
against
any
provision
of
law.
We
accordingly uphold these findings."

10. This Court, recently in F.A.F.O.
1070 of 1993 (E.S.I.C. Vs. S. Prasad)
decided on 26.10.2017 has followed the
decision in Golla Rajana (Supra) and has
held as follows:

"The grounds urged before this
Court are in the realm of finding of facts
and not a question of law. As far as
question of law is concerned, the aforesaid
judgment in Golla Rajanna Etc. Etc. Versus
Divisional Manager and another (supra) in
paragraph 8 holds as
follows
"the
Workman Compensation Commissioner is
the last authority on facts. The Parliament
has thought it fit to restrict the scope of the
appeal only to substantial questions of law,
being a welfare legislation. Unfortunately,
the High Court has missed this crucial
question of limited jurisdiction and has
ventured to re-appreciate the evidence and
recorded its own findings on percentage of
disability for which also there is no basis."

11. As far as present appeal is
concerned,
the
so
called
substantial
questions of law framed are questions of
facts and the findings of the Commissioner
on the said issues are not perverse. In view
of the decision of the Apex Court in North
East
Karnataka
Road
Transport
Corporation Case (Supra) and Golla
Rajanna
Etc.
Etc.
Vs.
Divisional
Manager and Another, 2017 (1) TAC 259
(SC) where also it has been held that under
Section 30 of the E.C. Act, 1923, the High
Court cannot enter into the arena of facts
unless they are proved to be perverse.

12. A recent decision of the Apex
Court in the case of Mayan Vs. Mustafa
and another, 2022 ACJ 524 also holds that
the Court cannot interfere unless there is a
question of law involved. In our case the
injury
was
during
the
course
of
employment. The percentage of injury was
decided
by
the
Commissioner.
The
judgment of Apex Court in Salim Versus
New India Assurance Co.Ltd. and another,
2022 ACJ 526 will also not permit this
Court to interfere in the well reasoned
judgment of the Commissioner.

13. This Court is even fortified in its
view in Shahajahan and another Versus
1134 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
M/s Shri Ram Gen. Insurance Company
Ltd. and another, 2021(4) T.A.C. 687 (
S.C.) as it is proved that the claimant was
employee of the employer and was engaged
as a cleaner, the said factual finding cannot
be interfered by this Court.

14. In that view of the matter this
appeal fails and is dismissed. The so called
questions of law framed by the Insurance
Company are answered against it. In fact
the substantial questions of law raised are
the questions of fact.

15. Interim relief shall stand vacated
forthwith. The Registry will forward this
order to the W.C. Commissioner who shall
immediately summon the claimants and
disburse the amount kept in fixed deposit
with interest accrued on the said amount till
date within 30 days from today.
----------
(2023) 3 ILRA 1134
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.01.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA
THAKER, J.
THE HON'BLE AJIT SINGH, J.

Government Appeal No. 650 of 1993

State of U.P. ...Appellant
Versus
Badri Lodhi ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellant:
A.G.A.

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
Sri C.B.Singh, Sri Avdhesh Narayan Tiwari,
Sri Surendra Singh

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860--
Section
302--Murder--Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973--Section 378(3)--
Appeals against acquittal--Scope of interference
by appellate court--Principles reiterated-If view
taken by trial court in acquitting accused is one
of possible reasonable views - appellate court
should generally not interfere with order of
acquittal--Prosecution failed to establish a
complete chain of circumstances--Evidence
scanty-No substantial and compelling reasons
to interfere with acquittal order-.

Appeal dismissed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:
1. M.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani Vs St. of Kerala
& anr., (2006) 6 S.C.C. 39

2. St. of Goa Vs Sanjay Thakran & anr., (2007) 3
S.C.C. 75

3. Chandrappa Vs St. of Karn. (2007) 4 S.C.C.
415

4. St. of Uttar Pradesh Vs Ram Veer Singh &
ors., 2007 A.I.R. S.C.W. 5553

5. Girja Prasad (Dead) by L.R.s Vs St. of M.P.,
2007 A.I.R. S.C.W. 5589

6. Luna Ram Vs Bhupat Singh & ors., (2009)
SCC 749

7. Mookkiah & anr. Vs St. Representatives by the
Inspector of Police, T. N., reported in AIR 2013
SC 321

8. St. of Karnataka Vs Hemareddy, AIR 1981, SC
1417

9. Shivasharanappa & ors. Vs St. of Karn., JT
2013 (7) SC 66

10. St. of Pun. Vs Madan Mohan Lal Verma,
(2013) 14 SCC 153

11. Jayaswamy Vs St. of Karn., (2018) 7 SCC
219
(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal
Jayendra Thaker, J.
&