Under Section 30, non-perverse findings of insurance coverage cannot be disturbed in appeal.

In brief

The question

Whether the Commissioner committed perversity in finding that truck No. WB-23-8470 was insured by the appellant on the date of the accident, 28.01.2013.

The court held

The High Court held that the Commissioner’s finding that the vehicle was insured on 28.01.2013 was supported by the record and was not perverse.

It also directed

The insurer was therefore liable to satisfy the compensation award.

The substantial question of law was answered against the appellant, the appeal was dismissed, and the records of E.C. Case No. 28/2013 were directed to be returned to the Commissioner, Employees’ Compensation, Dhubri.

01Facts

Late Saddam Hussain was employed as a handyman/cleaner on truck No. WB-23-8470. On 28.01.2013, while the truck was travelling from Bharampur to Krishnanagar, it met with an accident at Panighata Bridge, resulting in his death.

¶ 3–5

A claim under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 was filed before the Commissioner, Dhubri, in E.C. Case No. 28/2013.

¶ 3–5

The Commissioner awarded ₹9,57,185 with interest at 8% per annum and directed the appellant-insurer to satisfy the award.

¶ 9

The insurer challenged the award under Section 30 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, contending that the vehicle’s policy was effective only from 30.01.2013 to 29.01.2014, and therefore did not cover the accident dated 28.01.2013.

¶ 10–14

The claimants and the vehicle owner relied on Manual Policy No. ITGI2312013, allegedly valid from 23.01.2013 to 22.01.2014.

¶ 16–20

02Issues

i.Whether the Commissioner committed perversity in finding that truck No. WB-23-8470 was insured by the appellant on the date of the accident, 28.01.2013.

¶ 22–23

ii.Whether, in an appeal under Section 30 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, the High Court could interfere with the Commissioner’s factual finding regarding insurance coverage in the absence of perversity.

¶ 25, 28

03Law Applied

The appeal was governed by Section 30 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, under which interference is permissible on a substantial question of law and not merely to reappreciate findings of fact.

¶ 8, 25

A finding of fact becomes legally infirm when it ignores or excludes relevant material, relies on irrelevant material, or is so irrational as to suffer from perversity.

¶ 28

The Court considered National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Sobina Iakai & Ors., (2007) 7 SCC 785, relied upon by the insurer, and Harihar Prasad Singh & Ors. v. Balmiki, (1975) 1 SCC 212, relied upon by the claimants.

¶ 14, 20–21

Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 279 Section 304

04Reasoning

The substantial question initially framed proceeded on the assumption that there was no insurance coverage on the date of the accident; however, the Commissioner had expressly found, while deciding Issue No. 3, that the vehicle was covered under Manual Policy No. ITGI2312013 from 23.01.2013 to 22.01.2014.

¶ 22

That finding was supported by the manual policy produced as Annexure-1, Form 54, the seizure list, the Accident Information Report, and the owner’s pleading that the vehicle was insured on the date of the accident.

¶ 24, 26

Although the insurer’s witness relied on Exhibit-B showing coverage from 30.01.2013, he lacked personal knowledge regarding the accident or the vehicle’s insurance and his evidence did not establish that the manual policy was fabricated or inapplicable.

¶ 27

Since the Commissioner’s conclusion was based on relevant materials and was not irrational or perverse, the High Court held that Section 30 did not permit interference with that factual determination.

¶ 25, 27–28