Gujarat High Court
Suramsing Dayansing Tapyal vs Jasbirsing Sardar on 13 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1149/2009 ORDER DATED: 13/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1149 of 2009
==========================================================
SURAMSING DAYANSING TAPYAL
Versus
JASBIRSING SARDAR & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DJ BHATT(164) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR GC MAZMUDAR(1193) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
MR HG MAZMUDAR(1194) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
MS KARUNA V RAHEVAR(3818) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
SERVED BY AFFIX. (R) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
Date : 13/11/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present First Appeal is filed under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 by the original claimant for enhancement of the compensation granted by the learned Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation Act, Baroda vide order dated 04.04.2007 in Workmen's Compensation Application No. 49 of 1999.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. D.J. Bhatt for the appellant and learned advocate Mr. H.G. Mazmudar for respondent No. 2 on Page 1 of 7 Uploaded by MUSKAN AJAY MENON(HC02359) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 03:49:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1149/2009 ORDER DATED: 13/11/2025 undefined Hybird mode. Though served, none appeared for respondent No.1.
3. Brief facts of the case are as under:
3.1 The claimant, on 18.02.1999, was driving a truck, and when the truck reached near Morbi city, close to the railway underbridge, the said truck bearing registration number GQB-5057 dashed with another vehicle. Resultantly, the claimant sustained serious injuries on his left leg. The claimant also sustained fractures of the tibia and thigh. The claimant according to the claim application, was about 30 years old and was earning a salary of Rs.2,500/- per month and hence, claimed compensation of Rs.2,51,576/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the opponents. The application was contested by the insurance company by filing a written statement at Exhibit-8. The employer - opponent No. 1, though served, did not contest the application. After considering the evidence on record, the learned Commissioner partly allowed the claim application by granting a sum of Rs.92,343/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application till realization.
Page 2 of 7 Uploaded by MUSKAN AJAY MENON(HC02359) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 03:49:36 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1149/2009 ORDER DATED: 13/11/2025 undefined 3.2 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimant has filed the present First Appeal.
4. Learned advocate for the appellant contended that the present First Appeal is filed for enhancement of compensation, as the disability which has been considered by the learned Commissioner is not proper. It is submitted that while determining compensation, the injury need not be seen, but the overall impact of the injury is required to be seen. In the present case, Dr. Uday Ramchandran has assessed the disability at 68% of the left lower extremity and 5% of whole man for pelvic injury. The learned Commissioner, after considering the oral deposition of the said doctor as well as the medical certificate, considered 36.5% of the body as a whole and awarded compensation accordingly. It is further submitted that, considering the nature of the work of the appellant, the disability ought to have been assessed higher than 36.5%. Considering the injuries sustained by the appellant, the appellant is not in a position to perform driving activities and, therefore, there is 100% disablement in employment. Therefore, Page 3 of 7 Uploaded by MUSKAN AJAY MENON(HC02359) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 03:49:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1149/2009 ORDER DATED: 13/11/2025 undefined the compensation is required to be enhanced. Learned advocate for the appellant relied upon the case of "Indra Bai v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and Another", reported in 2023(8) SCC 217, and contended that when the disablement incurred in an accident incapacitates a workman for all work which he was capable of performing at the time of the accident, resulting in such disablement, the disablement would be taken as total for the purpose of awarding compensation. No other submissions were canvassed by the learned advocate for the appellant.
5. Per contra, learned advocate for respondent No. 2 - Insurance Company has supported the judgment and order and contended that the learned Commissioner has rightly appreciated the medical evidence and assessed the disability of the appellant. No other submissions were canvassed by the learned advocate for the respondent No. 2.
6. Having considered the submissions canvassed by the learned advocates for the parties and on perusal of the record and Page 4 of 7 Uploaded by MUSKAN AJAY MENON(HC02359) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 03:49:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1149/2009 ORDER DATED: 13/11/2025 undefined proceedings, it appears that the only question raised in the present appeal is with regard to the assessment of disability. If the certificate issued by Dr. Uday Ramchandran, recorded at Exhibit 31 dated 02.03.2005, is considered, it is stated that the appellant has difficulty in walking, is unable to walk fast, experiences pain during walking and climbing, and has difficulty in squatting and sitting, with apprehension of fall due to hip and O/C malunion of the tibia and fibula. However, there is no medical evidence on record which indicates that the appellant is completely unable to perform his work as a driver, which he was doing prior to the accident. It is for the appellant to establish, by way of leading medical evidence, that due to his injuries which he has sustained in the accident, he is unable to carry out those activities. The medical evidence produced on record has been considered by the learned Commissioner, and has accepted the disability assessed by the medical expert. In the absence of any contrary material pointed out by learned advocate for the appellant for increase in percentage of disability, I am of the view that the learned Page 5 of 7 Uploaded by MUSKAN AJAY MENON(HC02359) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 03:49:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1149/2009 ORDER DATED: 13/11/2025 undefined Commissioner has properly appreciated the evidence available on record.
7. The decision of "Indra Bai (Supra)", however, is not helpful to the appellant. As recorded in paragraph 5 of the said decision, the doctor in that case issued a certificate indicating permanent disability to the extent of 50%, declaring that the claimant was unfit for labour work. The High Court, on challenge made by the appellant, reduced the disability from 50% to 40% for the purpose of calculating compensation. In the present case, there is no such medical evidence led by the appellant indicating that the appellant is unfit for the work of driving. Further, the assessment of disability by the learned Commissioner is purely based on the medical evidence placed before him.
8. Learned advocate for the appellant also contended that the rate of interest which has been awarded at 6% be increased to 9% per annum considering the nature of the injuries. However, considering the date of the accident, I do not find any reason to Page 6 of 7 Uploaded by MUSKAN AJAY MENON(HC02359) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 03:49:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1149/2009 ORDER DATED: 13/11/2025 undefined interfere with the rate of interest, which appears just and reasonable.
9. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the First Appeal lacks merit and the same is hereby dismissed.
10. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Tribunal / Court forthwith.
(D. M. DESAI,J) MUSKAN Page 7 of 7 Uploaded by MUSKAN AJAY MENON(HC02359) on Fri Nov 14 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 15 03:49:36 IST 2025