FA/99020/2004 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 990 of 2004 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI : ========================================================= 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 ? ========================================================= AMRUTBHAI BHAICHANDBHAI PATEL & 4 - Appellant(s) Versus JOITABHAI VENABHAI PATEL & 1 - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR KR RAVAL for Appellant(s) : 1 - 5.MS AMI N BHATT for Appellant(s) : 1 - 5. RULE SERVED for Defendant(s) : 1 - 2. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 26/08/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 01.08.2003 passed by the learned Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, Himmatnagar in W.C. Application No.37 of FA/99020/2004 2/3 JUDGMENT 1997 whereby, the said application was dismissed. 2.0 The facts in brief are that on 02.05.1997, at around 1515 hrs., while deceased – Arvindbhai Amrutbhai Patel was passing in a Tractor belonging to respondent no. 1 herein, through an unmanned railway crossing on the Himmatnagar – Idar railway line, a train dashed the said Tractor. As a result thereof, the deceased sustained severe bodily injuries and later, succumbed to it. 2.1 The legal heirs of the deceased, therefore, filed an application before the learned Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, Himmatnagar claiming compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-. The Court below, after appreciating the evidence on record, dismissed the said application. Hence, this appeal by the original claimants. 3. Heard learned Advocate for the appellants. Though served none appears on behalf of the respondents. The Court below, after considering the entire evidence on record, has come to the conclusion that the deceased was not an employee of respondent no. 1. In fact, in the complaint filed before Idar Police Station, by one of the cousin brothers of the deceased, it is averred that the said Tractor, belonging to respondent no. 1 herein, was being used by them for agricultural purposes. 4. From the record, it is not borne out that there existed a master – servant relationship between respondent no. 1 and the deceased. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the Court below was completely justified in dismissing the application of the claimants. I am FA/99020/2004 3/3 JUDGMENT in complete agreement with the reasonings given by and the findings arrived at by the Court below and hence, find no reasons to interfere in this appeal. 6. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal stands dismissed. No order as to costs. [K. S. JHAVERI, J.] Pravin/*