FA/268/2007 1/6 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 268 of 2007 With CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1221 of 2007 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH ========================================================= 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 ? ========================================================= GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION & 1 - Appellant(s) Versus NARENDRABHAI GUNVATBHAI SHUKAL - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR HARDIK C RAWAL for Appellant(s) : 1 - 2. MR.JRUGESH N JOSHI for Defendant(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH Date : 6/05/2008 C.A.V. JUDGMENT 1. Present appeal is preferred by the appellants – original respondents/employer under sec.30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (“the Act” for short) challenging FA/268/2007 2/6 JUDGMENT the Judgement and Award dtd.15/12/2004 passed by the learned Commissioner under Act in Workmen's Compensation (Non-Fatal) Case No.44 of 1999 awarding compensation of Rs.65,068=00 with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of accident till realisation, to the workman/claimant – respondent herein for the injuries sustained while he was on duty. 1. The respondent herein – original claimant/workman was serving as Artisan-A (Electrician) and he preferred Workmen's Compensation (Non-Fatal) Case No.44 of 1999 before the learned Commissioner under the Act, at Bhavnagar claiming compensation of Rs.70,000=00 for the injuries sustained by him while on duty contending inter-alia that on 10/5/1998 his duty was on duty in the workshop and at night he had gone to take fan-belt and at that time he had fallen in a dig, as a result of which he sustained injuries. He also submitted an application submitting that he should be declared medically unfit and his son should be appointed on compassionate ground. The claim was resisted by the appellants herein – original opponents/employer submitting that the workman has not sustained the injuries during the course of employment and therefore, he is not entitled to the FA/268/2007 3/6 JUDGMENT compensation under the Act. The workman came to be examined at Ex.29; documentary evidence such as salary slip, advance paid by the appellants/employer for the medical treatment came to be produced at Ex.14; medical certificate came to be produced at Ex.24; medical certificate issued by Dr.Jitendra Sidhdhhpura, who treated the workman, came to be produced at Ex.25 and on appreciation of evidence and considering the fact that even the workman was paid advance for medical treatment, the learned Commissioner held that the workman sustained injuries during the course of his employment and looking to the injuries sustained by the workman, the learned Commissioner held that the workman would be entitled to compensation of Rs.65,068=00 with 12% interest from the date of accident till realisation. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the Judgement and Award passed by the learned Commissioner under the Act dtd.15/12/2004 in Workmen's Compensation (Non-Fatal) Case No.44 of 1999, the appellants herein – original respondents/employer have preferred present appeal under sec.30 of the Act. 2. Mr.Raval, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the FA/268/2007 4/6 JUDGMENT appellants has vehemently submitted that the learned Commissioner has erred in coming to the conclusion that the respondent workman has sustained the injuries during the course of his employment. It is submitted that the learned Commissioner ought to have held that the case of the workman was not covered under the provisions of the Act and therefore, the workman was not entitled to get any compensation. It is also submitted that even the compensation awarded by the learned Commissioner is excessive and is required to be suitably reduced. Therefore, it is requested to allow the present appeal. 3. The appeal is opposed by Mr.Joshi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent - original claimant/workman. It is submitted that present is an appeal under sec.30 of the Act and unless a substantial question of law arises, the appeal is not maintainable and the findings given by the learned Commissioner are not required to be interfered with. It is submitted that on appreciation of evidence, more particularly considering the depositions, advance paid to the workman for medical treatment and other evidence, documentary as well as oral, the learned Commissioner has rightly held that the FA/268/2007 5/6 JUDGMENT workman has sustained the injuries while on duty and looking to the injuries and the Schedule, the learned Commissioner has rightly awarded the compensation of Rs.65,068=00 with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of accident till realisation and the same cannot be said to be excessive. Therefore, it is requested to dismiss the present appeal. 4. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties. 5. At the outset, it is required to be noted that present is an appeal under sec.30 of the Act challenging the Judgement and Award passed by the learned Commissioner under the Act awarding compensation of Rs.65,068=00 with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of accident till realisation for the injuries sustained by the respondent – original claimant/workman while on duty. The learned Commissioner, on appreciation of evidence, has held that the workman sustained injuries while on duty. The said finding is based on appreciation of evidence adduced by the respective parties and considering Ex. Nos. 29, 14, 24, 25, 29, 42 and 63. There is no substantial question of law involved and/or pointed out by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of appellants. Even considering the FA/268/2007 6/6 JUDGMENT evidence on record, which this Court has gone through, it cannot be said that the findings given by the learned Commissioner are perverse and/or contrary to the evidence on record. Even looking to the injuries and the Schedule, the learned Commissioner has rightly held that the workman would be entitled to Rs.65,068=00 with 12% interest from the date of accident till realisation and considering the same, and the same cannot be said to be excessive and therefore, the same is not required to be interfered with in an appeal under sec.30 of the Act more particularly in absence of any substantial question of law pointed out. 6. Under the circumstances and for the reasons stated above, the appeal deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. In view of the dismissal of the main appeal, no orders in Civil Application No.1221 of 2007. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated forthwith. No costs. [M.R. SHAH, J.] rafik