FA/474/2006 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 474 of 2006 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD - Appellant(s) Versus JAYANTILAL MAVJI THAKOR & ANR - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR KV GADHIA for Appellant(s) : 1, RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE H.B.ANTANI Date : 03/04/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. K.V. Gadhia for the appellant. Though served, nobody appears for the respondents. 2. This appeal is preferred under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 against the judgement and order passed by the Workmen FA/474/2006 2/3 JUDGMENT Compensation Commissioner, Labour Court, Gandhidham, Kutch in Workmen Compensation (N.F.) No. 4/2004 by which the learned Commissioner awarded compensation to the claimants to the tune of Rs. 90,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of the accident till realisation, plus Rs. 500/- towards the expenses and Rs. 600/- towards the Court Fee Stamp. The cost of Rs. 500/- was required to be borne by respondent no. 1, who is the owner of the truck bearing no. GJ-12-T-8951. The accident in question took place on 24th January, 2004 whereby respondent no. 1 had sustained injuries. 3. The learned advocate representing the appellant submitted that the learned Commissioner has merely on the basis of the application and the reply filed by the appellant (original opponent no. 2), vide Exh. 14, has decided the matter and awarded compensation in view of the provisions of Section 4(1)(b) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 to the tune of Rs. 90,000/-. The learned Commissioner, ought to have given opportunity to both the sides to lead evidence in the matter and should have examined the Doctor who had assessed the disability and issued the injury certificate. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the learned advocate submitted that it is a fit case to remand the matter for re-trial before the learned Commissioner. 4. Considering the submissions canvassed by the learned advocate for the appellant and on perusal of the judgement rendered by the learned Commissioner, FA/474/2006 3/3 JUDGMENT it becomes clear that the learned Commissioner, merely on the basis of the application as well as the documents, which were produced by both the sides and the reply filed by the appellant (original opponent no. 2), vide Exh. 14, decided the matter and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 90,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of the accident till realisation. The learned Commissioner ought to have allowed both the sides to adduce evidence and should have also examined the Doctor, who had assessed the disability of the injured. 5. In view of above, the order passed by the learned Commissioner is required to be quashed and set aside. The order dated 12th September, 2005 passed by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Labour Court, Gandhidham, Kutch in Workmen Compensation (N.F.) No. 4/2004 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded for re-trial in accordance with law by allowing both the sides to adduce the evidence. 6. The learned advocate submitted that the amount of Rs. 1,05,275/- has already been deposited with the Labour Court, the same shall be refunded to the appellant. 7. In view of the above observation, the appeal stands disposed of. (H.B. ANTANI, J.) siji