Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
FA/463120/2006 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST
APPEAL No. 4631 of 2006
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 ?
=========================================================
UNITED
INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD - Appellant(s)
Versus
FARIDABEN
KADARBHAI & 5 - Defendant(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
PALAK THAKKER WITH MR HASMUKH THAKKER for
Appellant(s) : 1,
RULE
SERVED for
Defendant(s) : 1
- 5.
NOTICE SERVED for
Defendant(s) :
6,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 26/08/2008
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. This
appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 22.12.2005
passed by the learned Commissioner under the Workmen’s Compensation
Act, 1923, Junagadh in W.C. Application No.52 of 2002 whereby, the
said application was allowed.
2.0 The
brief facts of the case are that deceased Kadarbhai Hussainbhai
was working as a Driver of the Auto-rickshaw bearing registration No.
GJ-11-T-3238, belonging to respondent no. 6 herein. On 02.10.2002,
during noon hours, while deceased Kadarbhai was going towards
Mangrol from Madhavpura in the said Auto-rickshaw, it met with an
accident. As a result thereof, the deceased sustained severe bodily
injuries and was admitted in a private Hospital. However, on
03.10.2002, he succumbed to the injuries.
2.1 The
legal heirs of the deceased, therefore, filed an application before
the learned Commissioner under the W.C. Act, Junagadh, claiming
compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- together with interest. The Court
below, after appreciating the evidence on record, allowed the said
application. Hence, this appeal by original opponent no. 2
Insurance Company.
3. Heard
learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents
on record. Learned Advocate for the appellant Insurance Company
contented that though a specific contention was raised with regard to
the possession of a valid licence by the deceased at the relevant
point of time, the Court below has not framed any issue regarding the
said aspect.
4. I
have gone through impugned judgment passed by the Court below and
find that the said contention raised by the Insurance Company
deserves consideration.
5. Considering
the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that instead of deciding
the matter on merits, it would be appropriate to remand the matter to
the Court below so as to enable the Court below to consider the
matter afresh, after framing issue regarding the said aspect.
6. In
the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment
passed by the Court below is quashed and set aside. The matter is
remanded to the Court below for consideration afresh, after framing
necessary issue regarding the aspect of valid licence. The Court
below will dispose of the matter, as expeditiously as possible,
preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of
writ of this order. It is clarified that this Court has not entered
into the merits of the matter and the Court below while considering
the matter afresh shall not be influenced by the fact that this Court
has quashed its earlier order. The amount deposited by the appellant
Insurance Company will be invested for a further period of six
months and the interest accrued thereupon will not be disbursed and
will be accumulated, till the final outcome in the matter. R & P
to be sent back to the trial Court concerned forthwith. No order as
to costs.
[K.
S. JHAVERI, J.]
Pravin/*
Top