Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
FA/99020/2004 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST
APPEAL No. 990 of 2004
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 ?
=========================================================
AMRUTBHAI
BHAICHANDBHAI PATEL & 4 - Appellant(s)
Versus
JOITABHAI
VENABHAI PATEL & 1 - Defendant(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
KR RAVAL for
Appellant(s) : 1
- 5.MS AMI N BHATT for
Appellant(s) : 1
- 5.
RULE
SERVED for
Defendant(s) : 1
- 2.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 26/08/2008
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. This
appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 01.08.2003
passed by the learned Commissioner under the Workmen’s Compensation
Act, 1923, Himmatnagar in W.C. Application No.37 of 1997 whereby, the
said application was dismissed.
2.0 The
facts in brief are that on 02.05.1997, at around 1515 hrs., while
deceased Arvindbhai Amrutbhai Patel was passing in a Tractor
belonging to respondent no. 1 herein, through an unmanned railway
crossing on the Himmatnagar Idar railway line, a train dashed the
said Tractor. As a result thereof, the deceased sustained severe
bodily injuries and later, succumbed to it.
2.1 The
legal heirs of the deceased, therefore, filed an application before
the learned Commissioner under the Workmen’s Compensation Act,
Himmatnagar claiming compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-. The Court below,
after appreciating the evidence on record, dismissed the said
application. Hence, this appeal by the original claimants.
3. Heard
learned Advocate for the appellants. Though served none appears on
behalf of the respondents. The Court below, after considering the
entire evidence on record, has come to the conclusion that the
deceased was not an employee of respondent no. 1. In fact, in the
complaint filed before Idar Police Station, by one of the cousin
brothers of the deceased, it is averred that the said Tractor,
belonging to respondent no. 1 herein, was being used by them for
agricultural purposes.
4. From
the record, it is not borne out that there existed a master
servant relationship between respondent no. 1 and the deceased. In
that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the Court below was
completely justified in dismissing the application of the claimants.
I am in complete agreement with the reasonings given by and the
findings arrived at by the Court below and hence, find no reasons to
interfere in this appeal.
6. For
the foregoing reasons, the appeal stands dismissed. No order as to
costs.
[K.
S. JHAVERI, J.]
Pravin/*
Top