### Scope of Appellate Intervention and Liability in Employees’ Compensation Claims Finding of fact regarding employer-employee relationship cannot be interfered with absent perversity or lack of evidence.

The respondent (claimant) filed a claim under Section 22 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, following the death of her son, Ravindra Thakur, in a vehicular accident on February 3, 2012.

The deceased was allegedly employed as a driver by Respondent No. 2 (owner) and died when his Maruti Omni was hit by an unknown truck.

The Insurance Company contested the claim, denying the employer-employee relationship and alleging a breach of policy conditions because the vehicle was purportedly used for "hire and reward".

The Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation-cum-Labour Court, Rajnandgaon, awarded Rs. 8,61,120/- with interest to the claimant on April 5, 2022.

The Appellant-Insurance Company challenged this award before the High Court of Chhattisgarh.

1. Whether the Commissioner erred in finding an employer-employee relationship between the deceased and the insured owner.

2. Whether the Insurance Company established a breach of policy conditions regarding the use of the vehicle for hire and reward to escape liability.

3. Whether the High Court can interfere with the Commissioner's findings of fact under Section 30 of the Employees’ Compensation Act.

The court primarily applied Section 30 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, which restricts appeals to "substantial questions of law" only.

It relied on the precedent set in North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation v. Sujatha (2019) and Golla Rajanna v. Divisional Manager (2017), which establish that findings of fact by the Commissioner cannot be interfered with unless they are perverse, arbitrary, or based on no evidence.

Additionally, the court applied Section 4 of the Act for the calculation of compensation based on age and wages.

The Court observed that the claimant provided specific pleadings and oral testimony regarding the employment of the deceased, which the Commissioner duly appreciated.

Since the vehicle owner was ex parte, the evidence regarding employment remained unrebutted.

Regarding the "hire and reward" allegation, the Court found that the Insurance Company failed to provide cogent or reliable evidence to substantiate a policy breach; mere suggestions in cross-examination or references to the FIR were insufficient for conclusive proof.

The Court reasoned that since the Commissioner's findings were supported by the record and the compensation was calculated strictly per Section 4, there was no perversity or jurisdictional error.

The Court answered that no substantial question of law arose for consideration as the appellant failed to prove a breach of policy or perversity in the lower court's findings.

The interim order was vacated, and the award of Rs. 8,61,120/- plus interest was upheld.