Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
FA/282819/1999 2/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST
APPEAL No. 2828 of 1999
======================================================
NEW
INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD - Appellant(s)
Versus
POONJABHAI
RANABHAI & 2 - Defendant(s)
======================================================
Appearance :
MR
AJAY R MEHTA for Appellant(s) : 1,MR SUNIT S SHAH for Appellant(s) :
1,
MR RC KAKKAD for Defendant(s) : 1,
RULE SERVED for
Defendant(s) : 2 -
3.
======================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 12/08/2008
ORAL
ORDER
1. This
appeal is directed against the judgement and award dated 2.12.1998
passed by learned Commissioner for Workmen s Compensation, Junagadh
in Workmen s Compensation (non-fatal) Application No.21/92 whereby
the claimant was awarded a sum of Rs.60,565/- along with interest at
the rate of 12%.
2. The
respondent no.1 was serving as driver of respondent no.3 at Junagadh.
On 14.7.1986 while on duty he was washing office vehicle being Jeep
No.GAK-9160 and at that time his right eye corneal was injured by a
small piece of stone. He has taken medical treatment at Irvin
Hospital, but ultimately his lost one eye. Therefore the respondent
no.1 has filed the aforesaid case claiming compensation which was
partly allowed as stated hereinabove.
3. Learned
Advocate for the appellant submitted that the learned Commissioner
the injury was not caused during the office hours, that the
respondent no.1 did not inform the office about the alleged incident
immediately and that the learned Commissioner has erred in
considering permanent disability at 50%. He further submitted that
the learned Commissioner has applied the amended provisions which
was made effective with effect from 15th September 1985
and therefore higher amount was awarded to the respondent no.1 and
that even if the disability is taken at 50% the total amount would be
only Rs.47390/-.
4. As
a result of hearing and perusal of the record, I am of the view that
there is substance in the argument of learned Advocate for the
appellant with regard to calculation of the amount. Even if the
disability is taken at 50% and the salary of the respondent no.1 is
taken at Rs.1000/- per month the compensation is required multiplied
by 189.56. On the date of the incident the claimant was 38 years and
therefore he is entitled compensation on the basis of 50% disability
and therefore the amount of compensation would come to Rs.47390/-
whereas the learned Commissioner has awarded Rs.60565/-. Learned
Advocate appearing for the respondent no.1 has fairly conceded to
this position and therefore the appeal is required to be partly
allowed.
5. In
the premises aforesaid it is held that the respondent no.1 shall be
entitled to compensation in the sum of Rs.47390/- along with interest
at the rate of 6% from the date of application till realization. The
balance amount of Rs.13175/- along with interest at the rate of 6%
shall be refunded to the appellant Insurance Company. The award of
the learned Commissioner is modified accordingly. Appeal is allowed
to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.
[K.S.
JHAVERI, J.]
ar
Top