FA/328320/2007 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 3283 of 2007 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 ? ========================================================= JAYENDRABHAI N. SHAH - Appellant(s) Versus RANJEETSING SURATSING GIL & 1 - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR SUBRAMANIAM IYER for Appellant(s) : 1, MR HIREN M MODI for Defendant(s) : 1, RULE SERVED for Defendant(s) : 2, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 12/08/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 21.02.2007 passed by the learned Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act at Vadodara in W.C. Application No.59 of 2003 FA/328320/2007 2/4 JUDGMENT whereby, the said application was allowed. 2. The facts in brief are as under; 2.1 Respondent no. 1, original applicant, was working as a Driver on the Tanker No. GJ-6-W-6836, belonging to the appellant herein and insured with respondent no.2. On 02.11.1998, while respondent no. 1 was going towards Rajkot from Dhol in the said Tanker, a Truck coming from the opposite direction, being driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the Tanker driven by respondent no. 1. As a result thereof, respondent no. 1 sustained multiple fractures and his right leg had to be amputed from above the knee portion. 2.2 Respondent no. 1, therefore, filed an application before the Court below claiming compensation of Rs.2,60,292/-. The Court below, after appreciating the evidence on record, allowed the said application. Hence, this appeal. 3. Mr. S. H. Iyer, learned Advocate for the appellant, submitted that he would not be in a position to assail the impugned judgment so far as it relates to the reasonings given while awarding the compensation in question. 3.1 He has, however, submitted that while imposing penalty, the Court below ought to have issued a Notice to the appellant and since no such Notice was issued, the direction qua imposing penalty, deserves to be quashed and set aside. FA/328320/2007 3/4 JUDGMENT 4. Mr. H. M. Modi, learned Advocate for respondent no. 1, submitted that since the appellant had committed default in making the mandatory deposit, the Court below was justified in imposing penalty. Hence, no interference is warranted from this Court in this appeal. 5. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. Before proceeding with the matter, it would be pertinent to note that in spite of the fact that the appellant had appeared before the Court below, in pursuance of the application preferred by respondent no. 1, the appellant had not deposited the requisite amount, as contemplated under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. 6. Keeping in mind the aforesaid factual aspect, I am of the view that the direction imposing penalty was essentially a consequential one inasmuch as the appellant had committed breach of the mandatory provisions of the Act. It is a matter of record that the appellant had not deposited the requisite amount before the Court below until the impugned judgment came to be delivered. In above view of the matter, the contention raised by the appellant is devoid of any merits. 7. Even otherwise, it also appears from the record that the advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant herein before the Court below had cited certain judgments for the purpose of not imposing any penalty, meaning thereby, the Court below had called-upon the counter-part of the appellant before the Court below as to why penalty should not be imposed for committing breach of the mandatory provisions of the Act. Thus, considering the facts of the case, I am of the view that the Court below was completely justified in passing the impugned judgment. I am FA/328320/2007 4/4 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. 8. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. [K. S. JHAVERI, J.] Pravin/*