FA/1643/1988 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 1643 of 1988 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI : Sd/- ======================================================= 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 ? ======================================================= NURUBEN WD/O RAFIK MOHMAD - Appellant(s) Versus SHRIKANT S R SHARMA & 1 - Defendant(s) ======================================================= Appearance : MR SV RAJU for Appellant(s) : 1, RULE SERVED for Defendant(s) : 1 - 2. ======================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 11/04/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The present appeal under Section 30 of the Workmens' Compensation Act has been preferred by the appellant-original applicant against the Judgment and Award dated 28.04.1986 FA/1643/1988 2/4 JUDGMENT passed by the Learned Civil Judge (S.D.) & Commissioner for Workman Compensation (Pms.) Godhra in Workmens' Compensation Case No.456(a) of 1985 for enhancement of Rs.42,358/- awarded by the authority with running interest @ 9% from the date of the application till its realisation from the opponents. 2. Notice was issued to the respondent on 03.08.2006. However, though served, none appeared for the respondent. It was also made clear that even if none appears on behalf of the respondent, the matter will be proceeded. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant, Mr.Pandya has contended that though the appellant was not cross-examined by any of the opponent regarding his salary of Rs.1,000/-, the Compensation Authority has based the claim only on the basis of Rs.500/-, therefore, instead of Rs.500/-, the authority should have accepted Rs.1,000/-. 4. I have gone through the evidence on record and the arguments advanced by the learned FA/1643/1988 3/4 JUDGMENT counsel for the appellant. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is required to be accepted in view of the fact that the income was not disputed and the authority has reduced the income without any cogent reasons. The findings of the authority are not considering the evidence on record. and, hence, the appellant is entitled to Rs.42,358/- with 9% interest. 5. Therefore, in view of the evidence on record, the Tribunal ought to have taken the figure of Rs.1,000/- per month instead of Rs.500/- per month under the head of loss of income. Thus, if 40% of his salary considering Rs.1,000/- per months comes to Rs.400/- and his factor considering his age comes to Rs.211.79 and on multiplication of it, the total comes to Rs.84,716/-. Hence, the appellant is entitled to additional amount of Rs.42,358/- with 9% interest and penalty of 20%. FA/1643/1988 4/4 JUDGMENT 6. In the aforesaid premises, the appeal is partly allowed. The appellants are entitled to an additional amount of Rs.50,829.60 (Rupees Fifty Thousand Eight Hundred Twenty Nine and Sixty Paise) (i.e. Rs.42,358/- + 20% penalty of Rs.8,471.60) by way of compensation for the death of the deceased along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the application till payment is realized. The judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified accordingly. There shall be no orders as to costs. Sd/- (K.S.JHAVERI, J.) /patil