SC: Fixed Shares Paid to Association of Persons Members are Taxable as Income, Regardless of Profit  ||  Supreme Court: Wife Pursuing Her Career Cannot be Deemed Cruelty For Hurting Her Husband  ||  Supreme Court: Appeals Must Include Certified Copies of Orders, as E-Filing Alone is Insufficient  ||  Supreme Court: Children Have a Fundamental Right to Receive Education in Their Mother Tongue  ||  Delhi High Court: Employer’s Delhi Head Office Alone Does Not Give Delhi Labour Courts Jurisdiction  ||  Delhi High Court: Labour Courts Cannot Decide Disputed TA/DA Claims under Section 33C(2) of ID Act  ||  J&K&L HC: Rejection of a Representation Does Not Create Fresh Cause of Action in Service Matters  ||  J&K&L HC: Suspension Period Can be Excluded Only For Back Wages and Not For Seniority or Promotion  ||  Supreme Court: SC/ST Act Does Not Apply to Alleged Casteist Abuse Inside a Private House  ||  Supreme Court: Frictionless Relationship Between the Bar and the Bench Strengthens Justice Delivery    

ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Saroj Gautam & Ors - (High Court of Delhi) (04 Nov 2022)

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

MANU/DE/4327/2022

Labour and Industrial

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 :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved