FA/510/1991 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 510 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 ? ========================================================= GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD - Appellant(s) Versus CHIMANLAL R PATEL - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR SP HASURKAR for Appellant(s) : 1, MS RV ACHARYA for Appellant(s) : 1, NOTICE SERVED for Defendant(s) : 1, 1.2.1, 1.2.2,1.2.4 MR PRASHANT MANKAD for Defendant(s) : 1.2.3 MR JAGDISH H MEHTA for Defendant(s) : 1.2.3 ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 05/08/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28th February, 1991, passed by the learned Civil Judge (SD) & Ex-Officio Commissioner for Workmen's FA/510/1991 2/4 JUDGMENT Compensation at Nadiad in Workmen's Compensation Case No. 53 of 1989 whereby, the said application was allowed and the respondent was directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,06,785 from the date of the accident till 26th June, 1989 and from 26th June, 1999 onwards with running interest @ 12% on outstanding amount of Rs.9,727/- till the payment is made and 50% penalty and medical expenses. 2.0. The short facts of the case are : 2.1. The respondent was working as a Helper with the opponent Board and was posted at Village Sarsa, Sub- Station Anand. On 1st July, 1987, while discharging his duties, he sustained severe injuries on the spinal chord. It is the case of the respondent that he took medical treatment as an indoor patient for a long time and that operation was performed on his body. Thereafter the respondent took medical treatment at Baroda and during that period he spent total amount of Rs.1,45,000/- towards travelling, medical expenses, diet and attendance charges. Since there was no movement in the spinal chord, the Doctor assessed the disability at 100%. 2.2. Thereafter, the respondent filed an application being Workmen's Compensation Case No. 53 of 1989 before FA/510/1991 3/4 JUDGMENT the learned Civil Judge (SD) and Ex-Officio Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation, Nadiad, claiming compensation. 2.3. The learned trial Judge after hearing the parties and after considering the evidence on record, allowed the application and directed the appellant- original opponent to pay compensation of Rs.1,06,785 with running interest @ 12% along with 50% penalty and Rs. 64,647/- towards medical expenses. Hence, this appeal. 3.0. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. Having perused the evidence on record, it transpires that the workman was earning salary of Rs.1,000/- per month and that the disability assessed by the concerned Doctor is 100%. Hence, in my opinion, the compensation awarded by the Court below is just and proper. 3.1. So far as the contentions with regard to penalty is concerned, the appellant-Board is not entitled to pay penalty @ 50%, in view of the fact that the appellant- Board had already deposited an amount of Rs.97,050/- towards compensation before the concerned Court on 9th May, 1989 and the same has already been withdrawn by the respondent. Hence, the trial Court has committed an error FA/510/1991 4/4 JUDGMENT in imposing penalty @ 50%. 3.2. So far as the contention regarding medical expenses is concerned the same also deserves consideration, in view of the fact that an amount of Rs.97,050/- was already deposited by the appellant-Board with the trial Court. Hence, the court below ought not to have awarded the amount towards medical expenses. 4.0. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned award is modified to the extent that the award passed towards compensation is confirmed and the award passed by the learned trial Court in respect of medical expenses and imposition of 50% penalty is quashed and set aside. In view of the amended provisions of the Act the rate of interest is modified to 6%. Hence, the appellant- Board shall pay interest @ 6% instead of 12%, from the date of accident till payment is made on 26th June, 1989. Balance amount of Rs.9,727/- shall be paid from the date of accident till the payment is realized. Rest of the award remains as it is. No order as to costs. [K.S. JHAVERI, J.] /phalguni/