SMT. T.S. SHYLAJA versus ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. & ANR.

Citation: [2014] 1 S.C.R. 35 · Decided: 03-01-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 1 S.C.R. 35 
SMT. T.S. SHYLAJA 
v. 
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 51 of 2014) 
JANUARY 3, 2014 
[T.S. THAKUR AND VIKRAMAJIT SEN, JJ.] 
Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923: 
A 
B 
s. 30, first proviso - Substantial question of law - Appeal c 
before High Court against order of Commissioner awarding 
compensation - Held: In terms of the 1st proviso, no appeal 
is maintainable against any order passed by Commissioner 
unless a substantial question of law is involved - In the instant 
case, High Court has neither referred to nor determined any 0 
question of law much less a substantial question of law 
existence whereof was a condition precedent for 
maintainability of an appeal u/s 30 -
Inasmuch as the High 
court remained oblivious of the basic requirement of law for 
maintainability of an appeal before it and inasmuch as it 
treated the appeal to be one on facts, it committed an error E 
which needs to be corrected. 
Claim petition - Death of a driver -
Commissioner 
awarding compensation - High Court setting aside the award 
holding that relationship of employer and employee was not F 
proved - Held: Commissioner had recorded a finding of fact 
that deceased was employed as a driver by owner of vehicle 
no matter the owner happened to be his brother- That finding 
could not be lightly interfered with or reversed by High Court 
-
The order of High Court is set aside and that passed by G 
Commissioner restored. 
A vehicle being driven by the appellant's son collided 
with another vehicle, resulting in his death. The 
35 
H 
36 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 1 S.C.R. 
A Commission for Workmen's Compensation allowed a 
compensation of Rs.4,48,000/-. However, the High Court 
in the appeal filed by the insurer held that the relationship 
between the deceased and his brother the owner of the 
vehicle he was driving was not satisfactorily proved to 
B be that of an employee and an employer and that the only 
remedy was by way of a claim for payment of 
compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. In the 
instant appeal filed by the mother of the deceased, it was 
contended that since no substantial question of law was 
C involved in the case, High Court should not have 
entertained the appeal in view of the provisions of s. 30 
of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923(rechristened 
as Employee's Compensation Act, 1923). 
D 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. In terms of the 1st proviso to s.30 of the 
Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, no appeal is 
maintainable against any order passed by the 
Commissioner unless a substantial question of law is 
E involved. This necessarily implies that the High Court 
would in the ordinary course formulate such a question 
or at least address the same in the judgment especially 
when it takes a view contrary to the view taken by the 
Commissioner. [para 8] [41-D-F] 
F 
1.2. In the case at hand, the Commissioner for 
Workmen's Compensation had appraised the evidence 
adduced before him and recorded a finding of fact that 
the deceased was indeed employed as a driver by the 
owner of the vehicle no matter the owner happened to 
G be his brother. That finding could not be lightly interfered 
with or reversed by the High Court. The High Court 
overlooked the fact that the respondent-owner of the 
vehicle had appeared as a witness and clearly stated that 
the deceased was his younger brother, but was working 
H as a paid driver under him. [para 9] [41-F-HJ 
T.S. SHYLAJA v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. & ANR. 37 
1.3. The High Court has neither referred to nor A 
determined any question of law much less a substantial 
question of law existence whereof was a condition 
precedent for the maintainability of any appeal u/s 30. 
Inasmuch as the High court remained oblivious of the 
basic requirement of law for the maintainability of an B 
appeal before it and inasmuch as it treated the appeal to 
be one on facts, it committed an error which needs to be 
corrected. [para 10} [43-A-CJ 
1.4. Besides, the only reason which the High Court 
has given to upset the finding of the Commissioner is that C 
the Commissioner could not blindly accept the oral 
evidence without analysing the documentary evidence 
on record. But it has not indicated as to what was the 
documentary evidence which the Commissioner tlad 
failed to appreciate and what was the contradiction, if D 
any, between such documents and the version given by 
the witnesses examined before the Commissioner. The 
High Court co

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