Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
FA/1494/1991 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST
APPEAL No. 1494 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 ?
=========================================================
RAMANLAL
PRAGJIBHAI SAVALIA - Appellant(s)
Versus
MANJULABEN
KANJI & 4 - Defendant(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
PV HATHI for
Appellant(s) : 1,
NOTICE SERVED for Defendant(s) : 1 - 4.
MR PJ
KANABAR for Defendant(s) :
5,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date : 28/07/2008
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. This
appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 3rd
October, 1983 passed by the learned Civil Judge (SD) and Commissioner
of Workmen’s Compensation in Workmen’s Compensation Case No. 13 of
1983 whereby, the application of the respondents-original claimants
was allowed and the appellant-original opponent no. 2 was directed to
pay a sum of Rs.21,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5250/- with
running interest @ 6% from the date of accident.
2.0. The
short facts of the case are :-
2.1. Respondents
nos. 1 to 4 are the legal heirs and representatives of deceased
Kanjibhai Punjabhai. Deceased Kanjibhai Punjabhai was doing masonry
work. The appellant – original opponent is the contractor.
2.2. The
proceedings before the learned Civil Judge (SD) and
Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, Amreli,
arose because of the accident which occurred on 20.04.1983 around
10:30 a.m., wherein while doing construction work, Kanjibhai
Punjabhai received serious injuries and ultimately succumbed to it.
The learned Judge after hearing the parties and considering the
evidence on record, allowed the compensation application with the
aforesaid direction. Hence, this appeal.
3.0. Heard
learned counsel for the parties. It is a matter of record that the
deceased expired during the course of employment. The said fact is
also evident from the evidence of Dr. Savalia ? respondent no. 5
herein at Exh. 34. Moreover, the documentary evidence at Exh. 30 and
32, also establish the said fact.
4.0.
In view of the above, in my opinion,
the impugned award passed by the learned trial Judge is just and
proper and no interference is required by this Court. Hence, the
appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
[K.S. JHAVERI, J.]
/phalguni/
Top