FA/141920/2002 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 1419 of 2002 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 ? ========================================================= ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD. - Appellant(s) Versus RANIBEN WD/O SURESHBHAI CHIMANLAL PAREKH & 4 - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR MAULIK J SHELAT for Appellant(s) : 1, MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI for Defendant(s) : 1 - 4. MR DIPAK R DAVE for Defendant(s) : 5, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 26/08/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 02.05.2002 passed by the learned Ex-officio Commissioner under the FA/141920/2002 2/3 JUDGMENT Workmen's Compensation Act, Surat in W.C. Application (Fatal) No.24 of 2001 whereby, the said application was partly allowed. 2.0 The facts in brief are that on 31.05.2001 while deceased – Sureshbhai Chimanlal Parekh was driving a Tempo bearing registration No. GJ-5-N-8612, belonging to respondent no. 5, original defendant no. 2, it met with an accident with a Truck near Village Mulegaun, Taluka Ugatpuri on the Mumbai – Agra Highway at around 2230 hrs. As a result of the said accident, said Sureshbhai Chimanlal Parekh expired on the spot. 2.1 The legal heirs of the deceased, therefore, filed an application before the Court below claiming compensation of Rs.4,18,460/-. The trial Court, after hearing both the sides, partly allowed the said application. Hence, this appeal. 3. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. The main contention raised by the appellant – Insurance Company is that the Court below has not taken into consideration the document produced vide Exhibit – 34 which reveals that the deceased was not in employment at the time when the accident in question took place. It appears that the Court below has not at all dealt with the said document at Exhibit – 34 in any manner whatsoever. In the above circumstances, it would be appropriate that the Court below considers the entire issue afresh, after taking into consideration the document Exhibit – 34. 4. Thus, with the consent of the parties and without expressing any FA/141920/2002 3/3 JUDGMENT opinion on the merits of the case, the matter is remanded to the trial Court for consideration afresh, in view of the discussion herein above. The impugned judgment of the trial Court is accordingly quashed and set aside. The trial Court will consider the matter without being influenced by the fact that this Court has quashed its earlier order and will dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of writ of this order. The amount deposited by the Insurance Company will be invested for a further period of six months. The interest accrued on the same will not be disbursed and will be paid only after the final outcome in the matter. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. R & P to be sent back to the trial Court concerned forthwith. [K. S. JHAVERI, J.] Pravin/*