Gujarat High Court
Smt. Ratanben Madeva Danger W/O. Late ... vs Shri Shamji Ala Danger on 24 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/643/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 643 of 2018
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR WITHDRAWAL/DISBURSEMENT
OF AMOUNT) NO. 1 of 2024
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 643 of 2018
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
=======================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
=======================================
SMT. RATANBEN MADEVA DANGER W/O. LATE SHRI MADEVA ALA
DANGER & ORS.
Versus
SHRI SHAMJI ALA DANGER & ANR.
=======================================
Appearance:
MS POOJA DHRUVE FOR MR HEMAL SHAH(6960) for the
Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6
MR KV GADHIA(319) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
=======================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK
Date : 24/06/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
Page 1 of 7
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Fri Jun 27 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jun 28 01:36:55 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/643/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2025 undefined
1. Present appeal under Section 30 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter be referred to as "the Act") and Order 41 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and award dated 30.12.2017 passed by the learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Labour Court, Bhuj at Kachchh in W.C.F. Application No.3 of 2008 whereby the learned Commissioner has allowed the application and awarded compensation along with 9% interest and 30% penalty.
2. It is the case of the appellants that the deceased Shri Madeva Ala Danger aged 34 years, who was working as a driver with respondent No.1 and due to accident occurred on 30.01.2008, he died. It is the case of the appellants that salary of the deceased was at Rs.3000/- per month at that time and the allowance was at Rs.3000/- per month and in all the deceased was earning Rs.6000/- per month. The wife of the deceased being a legal heir of the deceased has filed aforesaid application before the learned Commissioner whereby the learned Commissioner has allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation along with the interest and penalty.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award, the appellants have preferred the present appeal.
4. Heard Ms.Pooja Dhruve, learned counsel for Mr.Hemant Shah, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.K. V. Gadhia, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 - Insurance Company.
5. Ms.Pooja, learned counsel for Mr.Shah, learned counsel for Page 2 of 7 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Fri Jun 27 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jun 28 01:36:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/643/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2025 undefined the appellant has submitted the same facts which are narrated in the memo of appeal and has submitted that learned Commissioner has not considered the income of the deceased in its true and proper spirit. It is also submitted that the learned Commissioner has committed an error in determining the age of the deceased as 35 years and in applying factor of 197.06 instead of 199.40. It is submitted that the statutory interest provided under the statute is at 12%, however, the learned Commissioner has awarded 9% interest from the date of award and, therefore, under these circumstances, the appeal deserves to be allowed.
5.1 Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the jurisdictional error has been committed by the learned Commissioner and, therefore, it is substantial question of law and hence, the present appeal can be considered on this aspect. It is submitted that though the substantial questions of law are not proposed by the learned counsel nor the same are framed by this Court at the time of admitting the appeal.
6. Mr.Gadhia, learned counsel appearing for the respondent - Insurance Company has submitted that the learned Commissioner has not committed any error of facts and law in passing the impugned judgment and award. He has submitted that once the statute itself provided maximum limit of income, the Court cannot go beyond the same and, therefore, the learned Commissioner has not committed any error.
7. However, considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it can be decided at the time of final hearing and in view Page 3 of 7 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Fri Jun 27 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jun 28 01:36:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/643/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2025 undefined of the reported decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I am of the opinion that the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is required to be considered and the present appeal is to be entertained.
7.1 So far as the contention raised by learned counsel appearing for the appellants with regard to the income is concerned, since the deceased was working as driver and earning Rs.4000/- per month, the Court has determined the income of the deceased at Rs.4000/- per month because at the relevant time i.e. on the date of accident, the statutory ceiling which relates to the income was Rs.4000/-. The relevant provision of Section 4 of the Act which provides as under:-
""4. Amount of compensation. - (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the amount of compensation shall be as follows, namely:-
(a) Where death results froman amount equal to [fifty per the injury cent.] of the monthly wages of the deceased workman multiplied by the relevant factor:
or an amount of [eighty thousand rupees], whichever is more;
(b) Where permanent totalan amount equal to [sixty disablement results from theper cent.] of the monthly injury wages of the injured workman multiplied by the relevant factor;
or an amount of [ninety thousand rupees], whichever Page 4 of 7 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Fri Jun 27 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jun 28 01:36:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/643/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2025 undefined is more:
Explanation I. - For the purposes of clause (a) and clause
(b), "relevant factor", in relation to a workman means the factor specified in the second column of Schedule IV against the entry in the first column of that Schedule specifying the number of years which are the same as the completed years of the age of the workman on his last birthday immediately preceding the date on which the compensation fell due.
Explanation II. - Where the monthly wages of a workman exceed [four thousand rupees], his monthly wages for the purposes of clause (a) and clause (b) shall be deemed to be [four thousand rupees] only;
7.2 That at the time of accident, the statutory provision was in existence and the maximum limit of the income provided is to the tune of Rs.4000/- and, therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants on the aspect of income, in my view is baseless and when there is statutory provision, the learned Commissioner has not committed any error of facts and law in considering the income of the deceased. So far as the contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant with regard to the income of the deceased is concerned, I am of the opinion that the learned Commissioner has not committed any error of law and facts while calculating the compensation on the basis of the income considered at Rs.4000/- because it is subsequently amended in 2010 and, therefore, the provision amended in 2010 cannot give a retrospective effect and, therefore, the said contention of learned counsel for the appellants deserves to be turned down and not accepted.
8. So far as the contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant with regard to the age and rate of interest is Page 5 of 7 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Fri Jun 27 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jun 28 01:36:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/643/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2025 undefined concerned, Mr.Gadhia, learned counsel is unable to controvert that aspect and no sufficient explanation rendered by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company with regard to the age and rate of interest. Considering the material on record and the documentary evidence, the age is required to be determined / considered as 34 years instead of 35 years. Considering the decision of this Court in the case of E.S.I.C. Vs. Vasantbhai Bhudarbhai Parmar reported in 2007 (1) GLR 879 and considering the salary at Rs.4000/- per month of the deceased, the amount of compensation is to be awarded at Rs.3,98,000/- instead of Rs.3,95,200/- and the rate of interest from the date of application, the same is also to be increased from 9% to 12% which is applicable from the date of application till the final realization.
9. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the statutory provisions of law and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I am of the opinion that the appeal deserves to be allowed. Hence, the appeal is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Commissioner is hereby modified to the extent. The difference of the amount of compensation shall be deposited by the Insurance Company before the concerned Court within a period of eight weeks from the date of the order. The Insurance Company shall calculate the rate of interest from the date of application i.e. from 9% to 12%. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the difference amount before the concerned learned Commissioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of the order. The learned Commissioner shall disburse the difference amount in favour of the claimants after verifying their Page 6 of 7 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Fri Jun 27 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jun 28 01:36:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/643/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2025 undefined bank details through the RTGS / NEFT. Registry is directed to transmit back the record and proceedings of the case to the concerned Court forthwith.
Pending civil application/s shall stand disposed of accordingly. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated forthwith.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) V.R. PANCHAL Page 7 of 7 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Fri Jun 27 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jun 28 01:36:55 IST 2025