FA/73619/1990 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 736 of 1990 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 ? ====================================================== SWASTIK HOUSEHOLD INDUSTRIES - Appellant(s) Versus KISHAN LILARAM KHUSALANI & 2 - Defendant(s) ====================================================== Appearance : MR BR SHAH for Appellant(s) : 1,NANAVATI ASSOCIATES for Appellant(s) : 1, None for Defendant(s) : 1, NOTICE SERVED for Defendant(s) : 2 - 3. ====================================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 12/08/2008 FA/73619/1990 2/3 JUDGMENT ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is directed against the judgement and award passed by learned Civil Judge (SD) and Ex-Officio Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation in Workmen’s Compensation Case No.19 of 1985 dated 27th January 1988 whereby the claimant was awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.1,20,960/- along with penalty in the sum of Rs.60480/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. 2. The respondent no.1 was working with the appellant herein. On 14.11.1984 he was on duty. On that day at about 10.45 am the wall of factory premises collapsed and the respondent no.1 sustained injuries as a result of which he developed Paraplesia. Ultimately he had become totally disabled. Therefore the aforesaid compensation case came to be filed which was allowed as stated hereinabove. 3. Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the accident in question had not arisen in the course of and out of the employment and that the injury is possible by fall from a height of about 10 feet. He therefore submitted that no case was made out to entitle the respondent no.1 for compensation. 4. As a result of hearing and perusal of the record, this Court has found that the learned Commissioner has considered the matter in depth and considered all the documents in support of the claim of the claimant. It was established on record that the respondent no.1 was working in the factory of the appellant. It was also established that the accident has happened during the course of and out of the employment with the appellant. The medical evidence shows that the applicant sustained serious injuries and he has become permanently disable. FA/73619/1990 3/3 JUDGMENT Further finding of the Tribunal is that the salary drawn by the respondent no.1 is Rs.1080/- and on that basis considering the disability the learned Commissioner has awarded compensation. I am in complete agreement with the reasonings adopted and findings arrived at the learned Commissioner. No case is made out to take a different view of the matter. Hence the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. [K.S. JHAVERI, J.] ar