FA/463120/2006 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 4631 of 2006 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 ? ========================================================= UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD - Appellant(s) Versus FARIDABEN KADARBHAI & 5 - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR PALAK THAKKER WITH MR HASMUKH THAKKER for Appellant(s) : 1, RULE SERVED for Defendant(s) : 1 - 5. NOTICE SERVED for Defendant(s) : 6, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 26/08/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 22.12.2005 passed by the learned Commissioner under the Workmen's FA/463120/2006 2/3 JUDGMENT Compensation Act, 1923, Junagadh in W.C. Application No.52 of 2002 whereby, the said application was allowed. 2.0 The brief facts of the case are that deceased – Kadarbhai Hussainbhai was working as a Driver of the Auto-rickshaw bearing registration No. GJ-11-T-3238, belonging to respondent no. 6 herein. On 02.10.2002, during noon hours, while deceased – Kadarbhai was going towards Mangrol from Madhavpura in the said Auto-rickshaw, it met with an accident. As a result thereof, the deceased sustained severe bodily injuries and was admitted in a private Hospital. However, on 03.10.2002, he succumbed to the injuries. 2.1 The legal heirs of the deceased, therefore, filed an application before the learned Commissioner under the W.C. Act, Junagadh, claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- together with interest. The Court below, after appreciating the evidence on record, allowed the said application. Hence, this appeal by original opponent no. 2 – Insurance Company. 3. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. Learned Advocate for the appellant – Insurance Company contented that though a specific contention was raised with regard to the possession of a valid licence by the deceased at the relevant point of time, the Court below has not framed any issue regarding the said aspect. 4. I have gone through impugned judgment passed by the Court below and find that the said contention raised by the Insurance FA/463120/2006 3/3 JUDGMENT Company deserves consideration. 5. Considering the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that instead of deciding the matter on merits, it would be appropriate to remand the matter to the Court below so as to enable the Court below to consider the matter afresh, after framing issue regarding the said aspect. 6. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment passed by the Court below is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the Court below for consideration afresh, after framing necessary issue regarding the aspect of valid licence. The Court below will dispose of the matter, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of writ of this order. It is clarified that this Court has not entered into the merits of the matter and the Court below while considering the matter afresh shall not be influenced by the fact that this Court has quashed its earlier order. The amount deposited by the appellant – Insurance Company will be invested for a further period of six months and the interest accrued thereupon will not be disbursed and will be accumulated, till the final outcome in the matter. R & P to be sent back to the trial Court concerned forthwith. No order as to costs. [K. S. JHAVERI, J.] Pravin/*