FULMATI DHRAMDEV YADAV & ANR. versus NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR.

Citation: [2023] 14 S.C.R. 374 · Decided: 04-09-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY S. OKA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 14 S.C.R. 374 : 2023 INSC 790
374
CASE DETAILS
FULMATI DHRAMDEV YADAV & ANR.
v.
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 4713 of 2023)
SEPTEMBER 04, 2023
[ABHAY S. OKA AND SANJAY KAROL, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: The order of the High Court setting aside 
the order of the Commissioner awarding compensation in favour of legal 
representatives of the deceased employee.
Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 – Victim died as he was 
tying up logs on trailer – The Commissioner directed insurer to pay 
compensation of ₹3,94,120/- and the employer was directed to pay 
₹1,97,060/-, i.e., 50% of the compensation amount as penalty – High 
Court set aside the order of the Commissioner – Propriety:
Held: A bare perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the High 
Court did not frame any substantial question of law – The wording of the 
Act indicates that the existence of such a question is a prerequisite to the 
appeal being entertained – The diﬀ erence, between the two judgments, i.e., 
the order of the Commissioner and the judgment in First Appeal, was on the 
point of the employer-employee relationship having been established – The 
Commissioner held such relationship to have been established however, 
the appeal Court observed that “claimants have clearly failed to prove this 
aspect” – The Commissioner had not returned any ﬁ ndings in respect of the 
validity of non-availability of the license of the deceased nor was it one of 
the questions framed by the Commissioner for consideration – In such a 
situation, while exercising powers within the limited purview allowed by 
section 30 of the Act, the Court below erred in making observations – It 
is settled that Commissioner is the last authority on facts involved in a 
case – The circumstances, i.e., the presence of the deceased at the spot; 
the ownership of the trolley and the goods loaded therein; the presence 
375
of this supervisor of the employer company; and details mentioned in the 
inquest panchnama form, when considered together, point to the aspect of 
the deceased person being on the roll of the employer – Keeping with the 
principles of the legislation being intended for social welfare and protection 
of employees; the Commissioner being the last authority on facts; the scope 
of an appeal under the said Act being limited only to substantial questions 
of law; and no perversity could be demonstrated from the order of the 
Commissioner. [Paras 18, 19, 21, 22, 29, 32]
Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 – s.30 – An appeal from an 
order Commissioner – To be entertained if there exists a substantial 
question of law: 
Held: The Act is unequivocal in stating that an appeal from an order of 
Commissioner can be entertained only if there exists a substantial question 
of law to be considered – It has been observed by the Supreme Court that 
the phrase “substantial question of law” within this Act shall be understood 
by its general meaning – When considering the general meaning of this 
phrase, naturally, the reference is to the Code of Civil Procedure – The 
rule therein is that framing of a substantial question of law is of cardinal 
importance. [Para 17]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
North – East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation v. Sujatha (2019) 
11 SCC 514 : [2018] 13 SCR 1043; C. Manjamma v. New India Assurance 
Co. Ltd. (2022) 6 SCC 206; K. Sivaraman v. P. Sathishkumar (2020) 4 SCC 
594 : [2020] 4 SCR 480 – relied on.
Om Prakash Batish v. Ranjit (2008) 12 SCC 212 : [2008] 6 SCR 938; 
Golla Rajamma & Ors. v. Divisional Manager & Anr. (2017) 1 SCC 45 : 
[2016] 9 SCR 469 – referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED 
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4713 of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.02.2019 of the High Court of 
Gujarat at Ahmedabad in FA No.3487 of 2013.
FULMATI DHRAMDEV YADAV & ANR. v. NEW INDIA 
ASSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR.
376 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
Appearances:
Shreyas Mehrotra, Ms. Savita Sinha, Rahul Gupta, Advs. for the 
Appellants.
Dr. Meera Agarwal, Ramesh Chandra Mishra, Advs. for the 
Respondents.
JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
JUDGMENT
SANJAY KAROL J.,
1. This appeal is ﬁ led at the instance of one Fulmati Dhramdev Yadav, 
assailing the judgement passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad 
in First Appeal No.3487 of 2013 whereby the Court has set aside the order 
of the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation Act, Bhuj (Kutch),
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.