FA/58020/2008 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 580 of 2008 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 ? ========================================================= REGIONAL DIRECTOR ESIC - Appellant(s) Versus PRAMODBHAI PRAHLADBHAI C/O. BHANUPRASAD KASHIRAM - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR SHASHIKANT S GADE for Appellant(s) : 1, MR HEMANT B RAVAL for Defendant(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 20/08/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 01.10.2007 passed by the learned Judge of the E.S.I. Court, Ahmedabad FA/58020/2008 2/3 JUDGMENT in E.S.I. Second Appeal No.56 of 2005 whereby, the said appeal was partly allowed and the decision rendered by the Medical Appeal Tribunal granting 15% permanent disability to the respondent herein was modified by enhancing the disability to 30%. 2. The facts in brief are that the respondent herein sustained severe injury on his right index, middle and ring finger during the course of employment. The Medical Board assessed the disability at 13%. Being aggrieved by the said decision, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Medical Appeal Tribunal being M.A.T. No.146 of 2005. The said appeal came to be disposed of by assessing the disability of the respondent at 15%. Against the said order, the respondent preferred second appeal before the E.S.I. Court, Ahmedabad. The E.S.I. Court, after appreciating the evidence on record, partly allowed the second appeal and enhanced the disability to 30%. Being dissatisfied by the said order, the appellant – Corporation has approached this Court by way of this appeal. 3. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. The Court below has based its findings on the provision contained in the Second Schedule of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, more particularly, the provision stated at Sr. No. 14 of Part – II. The said provision contemplates 30% permanent disability in case of loss of three fingers of one hand. 4. In the present case, admittedly, it is an injury to three fingers of one hand and one cannot say that a person would be able to work independently without the hold of three fingers of one hand. FA/58020/2008 3/3 JUDGMENT Considering the facts of the case and the relevant provision of law, I am of the opinion that the Court below was completely justified in passing the impugned judgment. 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 reasons stated herein above, the appeal stands dismissed. No order as to costs. [K. S. JHAVERI, J.] Pravin/*