FA/1494/1991 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 1494 of 1991 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 ? ========================================================= RAMANLAL PRAGJIBHAI SAVALIA - Appellant(s) Versus MANJULABEN KANJI & 4 - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR PV HATHI for Appellant(s) : 1, NOTICE SERVED for Defendant(s) : 1 - 4. MR PJ KANABAR for Defendant(s) : 5, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 28/07/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 3rd October, 1983 passed by the learned Civil Judge (SD) and Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation in FA/1494/1991 2/3 JUDGMENT Workmen's Compensation Case No. 13 of 1983 whereby, the application of the respondents-original claimants was allowed and the appellant-original opponent no. 2 was directed to pay a sum of Rs.21,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5250/- with running interest @ 6% from the date of accident. 2.0. The short facts of the case are :- 2.1. Respondents nos. 1 to 4 are the legal heirs and representatives of deceased Kanjibhai Punjabhai. Deceased Kanjibhai Punjabhai was doing masonry work. The appellant - original opponent is the contractor. 2.2. The proceedings before the learned Civil Judge (SD) and Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Amreli, arose because of the accident which occurred on 20.04.1983 around 10:30 a.m., wherein while doing construction work, Kanjibhai Punjabhai received serious injuries and ultimately succumbed to it. The learned Judge after hearing the parties and considering the evidence on record, allowed the compensation application with the aforesaid direction. Hence, this appeal. 3.0. Heard learned counsel for the parties. It is a matter of record that the deceased expired during the FA/1494/1991 3/3 JUDGMENT course of employment. The said fact is also evident from the evidence of Dr. Savalia – respondent no. 5 herein at Exh. 34. Moreover, the documentary evidence at Exh. 30 and 32, also establish the said fact. 4.0. In view of the above, in my opinion, the impugned award passed by the learned trial Judge is just and proper and no interference is required by this Court. Hence, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. [K.S. JHAVERI, J.] /phalguni/