LAWS(J&K)-2012-7-39

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY Vs. ABDUL HAMID WANI

Decided On July 10, 2012
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY Appellant
V/S
ABDUL HAMID WANI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE National Insurance Company has invoked Clause 12 of the Letters Patent Rules by filing the instant appeal, challenging the judgment and order dated 26.04.2006 rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CIMA no. 109/2004. The learned Single Judge has returned the findings on the basis of admitted facts. It has been found that the claimant-respondent sustained injuries and he was also in the employment of Shri Amin-Ul-Aziz. It was also conceded that the vehicle bearing registration no.JK-4-1146 was insured with the appellant- company at the relevant point of time and there was sufficient evidence on record to conclude that the claimant had suffered 80% disablement. The learned Single Judge also opined that the appeal against the award of the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for brevity 'the Act') would be competent as per the provisions of Section 30 of the Act if a substantial question of law is involved. On the score that no substantial question of law was involved and the appellant wanted the learned Single Judge to examine all its pleas afresh which were raised before the Commissioner, the learned Single Judge rejected the appeal of the appellant.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the respondent-claimant has raised a preliminary objection at the out set and has argued that a Letters Patent Appeal would not be competent because the authorities under the Act are the creature of the statute. According to the learned counsel, unless the appeal is permitted to be filed under the Statute, no appeal would be maintainable. In that regard he has drawn our attention to Section 30 of the Act which does not permit filing of Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. According to sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act, an appeal lies to the High Court from the order of the Commissioner which is further limited by clauses (a) to (e) and provisos. It necessarily follows that no second appeal would be competent in the shape of Letters Patent without the sanction of a Statute. The aforesaid provision reads as under:-

(3.) ONCE the legal position is clear that there is no provision in the Statute, which may be traceable to make the instant appeal competent, we are left with no option but to dismiss the appeal.