Gujarat High Court High Court

Arvindbhai vs Commissioner on 12 August, 2008

Gujarat High Court
Arvindbhai vs Commissioner on 12 August, 2008
Author: Ks Jhaveri,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

FA/60320/2003	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

FIRST
APPEAL No. 603 of 2003
 

======================================================
 

ARVINDBHAI
RUGNATHBHAI BRAHMBHATT - Appellant(s)
 

Versus
 

COMMISSIONER
OF AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & 1 - Defendant(s)
 

====================================================== 
Appearance
: 
MR YV BRAHMBHATT for
Appellant(s) : 1, 
NANAVATI & NANAVATI for Defendant(s) :
1, 
RULE SERVED for Defendant(s) :
2, 
======================================================
 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
		
	

 

				Date
: 12/08/2008 

 

ORAL
ORDER

1. This
appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the
learned Commissioner for Workmen s Compensation, Ahmedabad dated
28.3.2000 in Workmen s Compensation Application No.39 of 1986
whereby the said application came to be dismissed.

2. The
appellant was serving as a peon in the establishment of the
respondents i.e. in the shop and establishment department at Raikhad
Vaisya Sabha. On 2.3.1984 he was on duty and he fell down and
sustained injuries on his leg. It was alleged that he sustained
permanent disability at 13% as a whole of the body and he remained on
leave for two months. The appellant has therefore filed Workmen
Compensation Application which came to be dismissed as stated above.

3. Learned
Advocate for the appellant submitted that the learned Commissioner
has erroneously dismissed the claim application; that the
Commissioner has failed to appreciate that the claimant has suffered
16% disability as a whole, and that he had remained on leave for two
months.

4. Learned
Advocate for the appellant further submitted that this case has been
squarely covered by the decision rendered in First Appeal No.255 of
1986 dated 11th July 2008. In the aforesaid decision also
the claimant was working with the same Department. There is no
dispute that the appellant has suffered injuries during the course of
employment.

4.1 In
view of the Division Bench judgement in the case of State of Guajrat
V. Rajendra Khodabhai Deshdia and Another,
reported in 1991 ACJ 638,
the appellant is required to be compensated in terms of scheduled
injury. The permanent partial disability is said to be at 16% as a
whole and the appellant was earning Rs.621.11 per month i.e. Rs.622/-
per month and the multiplier of 207.98 as per Schedule IV.
Accordingly the amount of compensation would be as under:

207.98X621.11×16

————————-

= 8662.967

50 x 100

5. Accordingly
the appellant shall be entitled to get Rs.8662.967 as compensation
amount. However, the claim of the appellant is only Rs.4204/- and
therefore the respondents shall pay the said amount of Rs.4204/-
along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on or before
31.10.2008. Appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. No order as to
costs.

[K.S.

JHAVERI, J.]

ar

   

Top