Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
FA/70019/1991 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST
APPEAL No. 700 of 1991
=========================================================
UNIOIN
OF INDIA & 1 - Appellant(s)
Versus
SHANTABEN
MANILAL KHODIDAS MAKWAN - Defendant(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MS
RV ACHARYA for
Appellant(s) : 1,GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Appellant(s) : 2,
MR VH
DESAI for Defendant(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 26/08/2008
ORAL
ORDER
1. By
way of this appeal, the appellant-Union of India has challenged the
judgement and order dated 13.03.1991 passed by the Workmen’s
Compensation Commissioner, Mehsana in Workmen’s Compensation
Application No. 35 of 1989 whereby the Commissioner has awarded Rs.
58,480/- by way of compensation to the original claimant.
2. The
original claimant-widow of deceased workman filed an application
before the Commissioner for Workmen’s compensation to recover
compensation of Rs. 1,16,960/- with interest and penalty in respect
of the death of her husband on 08.07.1987 while on duty with the
appellant employer. The cause attributed for the death was heart
attack. The Commissioner after hearing the parties passed the
aforesaid award. Hence the present application.
3. Ms.
Acharya, learned advocate appearing for the appellant has submitted
that the Commissioner has committed an error by holding that the
deceased husband of the present respondent-original claimant died on
account of accident during the course and in the employment of the
appellant inasmuch as the Commissioner has failed to appreciate the
fact that merely showing occasional duty of the deceased for 24 hours
would not show that at the time when the deceased husband of the
respondent was actually discharging his duties, the ill-fated attack
occurred.
4. This
Court has gone through the materials placed on record, including the
award of the Commissioner. From the records, it appears that the
Commissioner has gone through the evidence in detail and has observed
two main aspects viz. when the deceased died he was working as the
Sub-post Master and as the Signaller also. In support of the same,
the Commissioner has also gone through the various documentary
evidence produced by the claimant being Ex. 33 and 22.
4.1 The
Commissioner has also perused various citations relied upon by the
learned advocates for both the sides and has come to the conclusion
that the deceased died during the course of his employment and hence
is entitled to recover the compensation under the Act. I am in
complete agreement with the reasonings adopted and findings arrived
at by the Commissioner and therefore do not see any reason for
causing interference in the matter.
5. In
the premises aforesaid, appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(K.S.
JHAVERI, J.)
Divya//
Top