NORTH EAST KARNATAKA ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION versus SMT. SUJATHA

Citation: [2018] 13 S.C.R. 1043 · Decided: 02-11-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1043
NORTH EAST KARNATAKA ROAD TRANSPORT
CORPORATION
v.
SMT. SUJATHA
(Civil Appeal No. 7470  of 2009)
NOVEMBER 02, 2018
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]
Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923: s.30 – Appeal against
the order of Commissioner – Scope of interference – Held: The
appeal under s.30 of the Act to the High Court against the order of
the Commissioner lie only against the specific orders set out in clause
(a) to (e) of s.30 of the Act with a further rider contained in first
proviso to the Section that the appeal must involve substantial
question of law – In the instant case, employee died while on duty
due to heart attack – The Commissioner allowed the claim petition
filed by widow awarding Rs.3,79,120/- – High Court upheld the
decision of the Commissioner – On appeal, held: 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 – The concurrent findings
of fact of the two courts below are binding – Even otherwise, there
was no ground to call for any interference on any of the factual
findings – None of the factual findings were found to be either
perverse or arbitrary or based on no evidence or against any
provision of law – These findings are upheld.
Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923: s.4-A – Interest – Grant
of – The Commissioner allowed the claim petition with direction to
the appellant-employer to deposit the awarded sum within 45 days
failing which the awarded amount would carry interest @ 12% p.a.
– Held: The Commissioner awarded the interest to the respondents
@ 12% per annum on the awarded sum but it was awarded from the
expiry of 45 days from the date of order and that too, if the appellant
failed to deposit the awarded sum within 45 days –  This direction
of the Commissioner in awarding the interest on the awarded sum
was contrary to law laid down in Pratap Narain’s case and,
[2018] 13  S.C.R. 1043
1043
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1044
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 13  S.C.R.
therefore, not legally sustainable – In the light of this, even though
the respondent did not challenge this direction yet the question being
a pure question of law, with a view to do substantial justice to the
respondent, the order of the Commissioner is modified in respondent’s
favour to the extent that the awarded sum shall carry interest @
12% p.a. from the date of accident – Interest.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The questions 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.  These 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. [Paras 9-10]
[1047-G-H, 1048-A-C]
1.2 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. [Paras 11-12][1048-C-E]
2.1 When an employer files the appeal, he is under a legal
obligation to deposit the entire awarded sum in terms of second
proviso to Section 30 of the Act as a pre-condition to file the
appeal in the High Court except where the appeal is filed against
the order falling in clause (b). It is only when the employer
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1045
deposits the entire awarded money alo

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.