FA/28419/1988 2/ 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
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 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/*