Gujarat High Court
National Insurance Company vs Ashok Chindha Patil on 20 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/744/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 744 of 2010
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
================================================================
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY
Versus
ASHOK CHINDHA PATIL & ANR.
================================================================
Appearance:
MS MEGHA DAVE for MR DAKSHESH MEHTA(2430) for the Appellant(s)
No. 1
MR NA SHAIKH(1098) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
MR NACHIKET A DAVE(5308) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
Date : 20/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned advocate Ms.Megha Dave for learned advocate Mr.Dakshesh Mehta for the appellant. Learned advocate Mr. Nachiket A. Dave for respondent No.1 and learned advocate Mr. N.A. Shaikh for respondent No.2 have remained absent. Perused the record.
2. The challenge in the present appeal is by the original opponent No. 2 - Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dated 9.9.2008 passed by learned Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, Bharuch in Page 1 of 7 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Fri Nov 21 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 22 00:04:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/744/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025 undefined Workman Compensation Case (Non-Fatal) Case No.7 of 2005.
3. The facts in brief of the case are as under:
* The claimant - present respondent No.1 was working as a driver on Eicher Tempo No.GJ-16-V-5354 and was drawing Rs.3,000/- per month + Rs.50/- per day as daily allowance. Original Opponent No. 1 is the employer and Opponent No.2 is the insurance company. * On 7-12-2004, the claimant was proceeding from Mumbai to Pune by the said Tempo, when the vehicle reached near Kumbhavadi village around 6.30 am, a truck which was proceeding ahead of the Tempo, all of a sudden applied brakes. Resultantly, an accident occurred and claimant sustained serious injuries all over his body. * The claimant was admitted in the hospital and took treatment. The claimant thereafter filed a claim Page 2 of 7 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Fri Nov 21 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 22 00:04:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/744/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025 undefined application against the opponents. Opponent No.2- Appellant appeared and filed a written statement at Exhibit 11 and denied the claim of claimant.
* After considering the evidence on record, the learned Commissioner allowed the claim application by directing opponents to pay a compensation of Rs.3,41,208/- jointly and severally. Opponent No. 1 was directed to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of accident till realization with penalty of 50%. * Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order, the Appellant - Insurance Company has filed this appeal.
4. At the outset, learned advocate for the Appellant has proposed following substantial questions of law:
"(1) Whether the findings of the
Learned WC Commissioner, Bharuch is
vitiated because of non-consideration,
Page 3 of 7
Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Fri Nov 21 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 22 00:04:45 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/744/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025
undefined
misconstruction and / or misreading of
relevant evidence or by an erroneous
approach to the matter ?
(2) Whether there is an error on the
part of the authority below in relying upon the evidences produced by the claimant, who are interested parties. ?
(3) Whether the award passed by the
Learned WC Commissioner is justifiable
without necessary evidences regarding the permanent partial disability of the claimant ?
(4) Whether the inference to be defused from facts which are proved in questions of law ?
(5) Whether the Commissioner is
justified in allowing the claim without
Page 4 of 7
Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Fri Nov 21 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 22 00:04:45 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/744/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025
undefined
conclusive proof of percentage of disability which are basic necessity for arriving at the correct amount of compensation ?
5. No other substantial questions of law are proposed except the above.
6. It is contended by learned advocate for the Appellant that the learned Commissioner has not properly considered the facts and has erred in deciding the claim application against the Appellant. It is also contended that the expenses which have been alleged to have been incurred by the claimant is on the excessive side. The applicant was not holding a valid driving license at the time of accident. It is also contended that the claimant has not issued any notice under the Workmen Compensation . It is further contended that there is no evidence with regard to income of claimant. The assessment of compensation on the basis of assumption of income is excessive and without any evidence. Therefore, it is prayed that claim is required to be rejected. No other Page 5 of 7 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Fri Nov 21 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 22 00:04:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/744/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025 undefined submissions are canvassed except the above.
7. I have considered the submissions canvassed by learned advocate for the appellant and also perused the Record and Proceedings.
8. It appears from the record that the opponent No. 1, who was the employer, has chosen to remain absent all throughout the trial and has suppressed the vital evidence with regard evidence to the relationship of employee and employer as well as has also suppressed the income which the claimant was drawing at the time of accident. The learned Commissioner has considered the evidence and has also taken into consideration the examination in chief which has gone unchallenged from the employer's side. The question of relationship that of employee and employer is a question of fact. When material evidence is not placed on record by the employer, the finding arrived at by the learned Commissioner is in consonance with the facts pleaded and proved by claimant and as well as in consonance with law. Page 6 of 7 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Fri Nov 21 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 22 00:04:45 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/744/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025 undefined Learned Commissioner while determining compensation has considered FIR, Panchnama and the medical papers which were produced on record. It also appears that the amount involved in the appeal is not a huge amount whereby the findings of the learned Commissioner can be disturbed, more particularly, in absence of any contrary material being pointed out by learned advocate for the appellant to disbelieve the findings of the fact. So far as substantial questions of law which have been proposed by the learned advocate for the appellant, they are nowhere involving any question of law, much less, substantial questions of law and, therefore, the present First Appeal lacks merit and it requires to be dismissed. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed.
9. Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the concerned authority, forthwith. Interim Relief, if any, stands vacated forthwith. No order as to costs.
(D. M. DESAI,J) vk Page 7 of 7 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Fri Nov 21 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 22 00:04:45 IST 2025