FA/28419/1988 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 284 of 1988 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 ? ========================================================= CHANDUBHAI CHHOTABHAI PARMAR. - Appellant(s) Versus JASABHAI S RAVAL. & 2 - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : NOTICE SERVED for Appellant(s) : 1,MR NIRAV C THAKKAR for Appellant(s) : 1, NOTICE SERVED for Defendant(s) : 1, NOTICE UNSERVED for Defendant(s) : 2, MR RAJNI H MEHTA for Defendant(s) : 3. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 12/08/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 31.01.1985 passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.) & Ex-officio FA/28419/1988 2/3 JUDGMENT Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Nadiad in W.C.C. No.19 of 1983 whereby, the said application was partly allowed. 2. The respondent no. 2 herein was running a glass factory wherein, the appellant was employed to do the work of crushing glass by respondent no. 1 on contract basis. On 06.08.1982, at around 0800 hrs., while the appellant was doing his work, his right hand accidentally got entangled in the machine. As a result thereof, the appellant sustained severe injury on his right hand. 2.1 The appellant, therefore, filed the aforesaid case before the Court below claiming total compensation of Rs.36,280/-. The Court below, after appreciating the evidence on record, partly allowed the case by awarding a sum of Rs.16,400/- towards compensation. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has preferred this appeal before this Court. 3. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. It is not in dispute that the appellant sustained the injury in question during the course of employment. As per the medical evidence on record, the appellant was having 50% permanent disability for the body as a whole. On the basis of the said evidence, the respondents have admitted before the Court below that the appellant had lost 75% of his earning capacity as against the claim of 100% made by the appellant. Accordingly, the Court below assessed the loss of earning capacity of the appellant at 75%. 4. So far as the amount of compensation awarded by the Court FA/28419/1988 3/3 JUDGMENT below is concerned, in my opinion, the same is just and proper, if we look at the overall evidence available on record. No other view is possible than the one taken by the Court below. Nothing has been shown from the record which may warrant interference from this Court in this appeal. I am in complete agreement with the reasonings given by and the findings arrived at by the Court below. 5. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. [K. S. JHAVERI, J.] Pravin/*