Gujarat High Court
Icici Lombard Gen Ins. Co. Ltd vs Sardarbhai Galabhai Patel on 3 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8684/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8684 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
ICICI LOMBARD GEN INS. CO. LTD.
Versus
SARDARBHAI GALABHAI PATEL & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR CHIRAYU A MEHTA(3256) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
K K MAGHNANI(7543) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR K B MAGHNANI(9673) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 03/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order passed by the learned Commissioner for the Workmen Compensation, Godhra, in Workmen Compensation (Fetal) Application No. 06 of 2020 on 19.01.2025, whereby the learned Commissioner has rejected the application filed below Exh.42, seeking the issuance of a witness summons to Prakashbhai Chuniyabhai, who was a Police Constable serving at Sherha Police Station. Page 1 of 5 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Fri Nov 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 08 02:29:09 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8684/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2025 undefined
2. It is the case of the present petitioner who is the Insurance Company before this Court that one person, namely, Sanjaykumar Sardarbhai Patel, died in an accident that occurred on 11.07.2020. He was driving the Tractor bearing Registration No.GJ-17-AE-2627. A complaint came to be filed under the Workmen's Compensation Act, alleging that as he lost control and jumped from the Tractor, he received fatal injuries and, therefore, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the claim to the tune of Rs.17,60,275/-. The petitioner - company appeared and filed a written statement controverting the facts stated in the claim petition and submitted that as the deceased fell down from his house and sustained serious injuries resulted into the fatal, he is not entitled to the claim which is sought before the learned Commissioner.
2.1 To prove its defense, an application came to be filed below Exh.40, seeking a witness summons to the Police Constable, Sherha Police Station, Bakal No.652, who recorded the telephone Vardhi with regard to the accidental death and mentioned that as the deceased fell down from the terrace, he received serious injuries and ultimately succumbed to the injuries. The said Page 2 of 5 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Fri Nov 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 08 02:29:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8684/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2025 undefined application came to be rejected by the learned Commissioner on the ground that after the recording of the said Vardhi, the investigation was carried out by A.S.I. Mahendrakumar Dalsukhram, who ultimately opined that the death was not caused due to falling down from the terrace, but was due to an accident which was caused while driving the Tractor. The said order is under challenge before this Court.
3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Chirayu A. Mehta for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. K. B. Maghnani for the respondent No.1.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Mehta submitted that initially, the telephone Vardhi was recorded by the Police Constable, namely Prakashbhai Chuniyabhai, reporting that the deceased, Sandeepkumar Sadarbhai, resident of Dhamai, Patel Faliyu, fell down from the terrace and received injuries. Learned advocate Mr. Mehta submits that though the Investigating Officer had opined contrary to the said Vardhi, but to prove the defense, the witness, namely Prakashbhai Chuniyabhai, is required to be examined. Learned advocate Mr. Mehta submits that in any manner, the examination of the witness could not cause any Page 3 of 5 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Fri Nov 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 08 02:29:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8684/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2025 undefined prejudice to the respondent, as he would have a full opportunity to cross-examine the said witness. Learned advocate Mr. Mehta submits that the examination of the said witness is required to surface the truth on record. In view of the same, learned advocate Mr. Mehta has prayed to set aside the impugned order dated 19.01.2025 and to allow the present petition.
5. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Maghnani submits that the petition is filed challenging the order dated 19.01.2025, after a period of 6 months and the petitioner wants to delay the adjudication which is pending before the learned Commissioner. However, learned advocate is not able to submit with regard to any adverse effect if this witness is examined.
6. Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned advocates for the respective parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that as the Vardhi has been recorded by the Police Constable, namely Prakashbhai Chuniyabhai of Sherha Police Station, to bring the real facts on record, the examination of the said witness is required to be made.
6.1 While rejecting the application, the learned Commissioner has not examined the prime question: if the application is Page 4 of 5 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Fri Nov 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 08 02:29:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8684/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/11/2025 undefined granted, is it likely to cause any prejudice to the other side and is the examination of the witness necessary for arriving at a just decision of the case? From this angle, the question has not been examined at all. Even before this Court, the learned advocate for the respondent is unable to answer the query of the Court as to whether any prejudice is likely to be caused if the witness is allowed to be examined at this stage. In the opinion of this Court, even if this witness is examined, the respondent would have a full opportunity to cross-examine and in no manner prejudice would be caused to the other side.
7. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. The order passed by the learned Commissioner dated 19.01.2025 below Exh.42 is hereby set aside. The learned Commissioner is directed to issue a witness summons to the Police Constable, namely Prakashbhai Chuniyabhai and to examine him in accordance with law.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) Vikramsinh Amarsinh Page 5 of 5 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Fri Nov 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 08 02:29:09 IST 2025