FA/1080/1984 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 1080 of 1984 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 ? ========================================================= AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPN. - Appellant(s) Versus DHULABHAI KHANABHAI - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR JR NANAVATI for Appellant(s) : 1, NOTICE NOT RECD BACK for Defendant(s) : 1, (MS BELA YAJNIK) for Defendant(s) : 1, 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3,1.2.4 NOTICE UNSERVED for Defendant(s) : 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3,1.2.4 ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 06/05/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 29.07.1983 passed by the learned FA/1080/1984 2/3 JUDGMENT City Civil Judge, Court No. 14, Ahmedabad in Civil Suit No. 2482 of 1980 whereby, the said suit was decreed in favour of the respondent – plaintiff. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 10.11.1979 while the respondent – plaintiff was discharging her duties with the appellant – Corporation, she met with an accident. As a result thereof, the right leg of the employee had to be amputated near the upper portion thereby, leaving her handicapped for the rest of her life. 2.1 She, therefore, filed the suit in question claiming compensation of Rs.50,000/-. The appellant - Corporation filed its written statement in the said suit at Exhibit – 12. The trial Court, after framing the issues, decreed the suit in favour of the respondent – employee by way of passing the impugned judgment and decree. Hence, this Appeal. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant – Corporation and perused the documents on record. The alleged incident in question took place on 10.11.1979. The fact that the machine in question was not working on the day of the alleged incident and that the repair work was going on are not in dispute. In fact, it has come on record that the machine in question was not working continuously for the period from 06.11.1979. No case was pleaded or no evidence was adduced by the appellant – Corporation to show that the respondent – plaintiff was warned that the FA/1080/1984 3/3 JUDGMENT machine in question would start at any time. Thus, it is established from that record that the factum of danger attached to the machine in question was not pointed out to the respondent – plaintiff. 4. Considering the circumstances in which the accident took place and the factual aspects which has come out from the record, I am of the opinion that the Court below was completely justified in holding the appellant – Corporation solely negligent for the incident in question. The Court below has also arrived at the conclusion that as a result of the injury sustained by the respondent – plaintiff, she had lost at least 20% of her earning capacity, a fact which was not disputed by the appellant – Corporation before the Court below. The Court below has discussed each and every aspect in detail in the impugned judgment and decree. In my opinion, the Court below was completely justified in decreeing the suit in favour of the respondent – plaintiff. I am 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. 5. For the foregoing reasons, the Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. [K. S. JHAVERI, J.] Pravin/*