Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
FA/1617/1991 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST
APPEAL No. 1617 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 ?
=========================================================
RATANBEN
KOYABHAI PARMAR & 1 - Appellant(s)
Versus
USHA
PRISTED SIPER INDUSTRIES - Defendant(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
.......
for Appellant(s) : 1 - 2.
NOTICE
SERVED for Defendant(s) : 1,
MS MITTAL V RAHEVAR for Defendant(s)
: 1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 28/07/2008
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. This
appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 11th
March, 1991 passed by the Civil Judge (SD), and Ex-Officio
Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Panchmahals in Workmen’s
Compensation Case No. 9/1989, whereby the said application was
allowed and the appellants-original applicants were awarded an amount
of Rs.43,967.92 paise towards compensation with interest @ 6% from
the date of application till its realization.
2.0. The
short facts of the case are that deceased Manubhai was working as
labour with the opponent-Company. On 19.11.1988, during the course of
employment, deceased Manubhai met with an accident and sustained
severe bodily injuries and ultimately succumbed to it.
2.1. The
legal heirs of the deceased, the appellants herein, filed an
application before the learned Civil Judge (SD) and Ex-officio
Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Panchmahals at Godhra for
recovery of compensation to the tune of Rs.54,896/- under the
Workmen’s Compensation Act.
2.2. The
learned trial Judge, after hearing the parties and after considering
the evidence on record partly allowed the application. However, no
penalty was imposed by the trial Court. Hence, this appeal.
3.0. The
main contention raised in this appeal is that while passing the
impugned award, the trial Court ought to have imposed penalty in view
of the fact that the accident was within the knowledge of the
employer. Having perused the evidence on record, it appears that no
evidence was produced on record to the effect that they are entitled
to get penalty on the total amount of compensation. However, it is a
matter of discretion whether to grant the penalty or not. Hence, no
case is made out to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal,
therefore, deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.
[K.S.
JHAVERI, J.]
/phalguni/
Top