Sanjeev Kumar v. Mohammad Mobeen and Anr.

1. By way of the present appeal filed under Section 30 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter, referred to as the ‘Act’), the appellant/respondent No.1 (the employer) has assailed the order dated 31.08.2022 passed by the learned Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation whereby penalty of Rs.4,25,030/- was imposed upon him.

2. Mr. Adarsh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that though the aforesaid penalty amount has been deposited, however the impugned order has been assailed on the ground that the claim application form was supplied to respondent No.2/M/s Sri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd. within the stipulated time. It is contended that liability to pay penalty amount, if any, ought to have been fastened on respondent No. 2 instead of the appellant.

3. A reading of the paper book would show that during the proceedings, a Show Cause Notice dated 08.12.2021 was issued to the appellant, inter alia, directing him to show cause as to why penalty as prayed should not be awarded as per the provisions of Section 4-A (3)(b) of the Act. The appellant filed his Reply, a copy of which has been placed on the record. The said Reply reads as under:

4. At this juncture, this Court deems it expedient to outline the scope of an appeal filed under Section 30 of the Act as delineated in North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation v. Sujatha reported as (2019) 11 SCC 514. In the captioned case, the Supreme Court reiterated that the scope of interference in an appeal filed under Section 30 of the Act is limited to substantial questions of law and findings of facts proved either way, are not to be likely interfered with. It was further 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, the extent of disability caused to the 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 the findings of fact.

11. The appeal provided under Section 30 of the Act to the High Court against the order of the Commissioner lies only against the specific orders set out in clauses (a) to (e) of Section 30 of the Act with a further rider contained in the first proviso to the section that the appeal must involve substantial questions of law.

12. In other words, the appeal provided under Section 30 of the Act to the High Court against the order of the Commissioner is not like a regular first appeal akin to Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which can be heard both on facts and law. The appellate jurisdiction of the High Court to decide the appeal is confined only to examine the substantial questions of law arising in the case.”

5. A perusal of the Motor Insurance Claim Form would show that it bears mention of two different date(s) i.e., 03.02.2018 and 17.02.2018. The appellant has failed to place any material on record or led any evidence to the effect that the claim form was duly submitted by him to the insurance company within the stipulated time. On the other hand, a specific denial has come on the record by respondent No. 2 that the requisite intimation was not received by it from the appellant.

6. In view of the dicta of the Supreme Court in Sujatha (Supra) as well as the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the opinion that no ground is made out to interfere with the finding of fact recorded in the impugned order. Consequently, the same is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. Let penalty amount stated to be deposited be released forthwith to respondent No. 1/claimant alongwith interest accrued thereupon, if any, if not already done.

7. Pending application is disposed of as infructuous.

8. A copy of this judgment be forwarded to the concerned Commissioner for information.

JUDGE NOVEMBER 28, 2022