Gujarat High Court
United India Insurance Co Ltd vs Madhuben Wd/O Pravinsinh Rathod on 20 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/5036/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 5036 of 2007
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2007
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 5036 of 2007
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD
Versus
MADHUBEN WD/O PRAVINSINH RATHOD & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
K K MAGHNANI(7543) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MR K B MAGHNANI(9673) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MR KUNAL NANAVATI for M/S. NANAVATI ASSOCIATES(1375) for the
Defendant(s) No. 5
NOTICE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 6
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
Date : 20/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. By way of present First Appeal, the appellant - original opponent No.3 has challenged the judgment and award dated 31.7.2007 passed by the learned Commissioner, Bharuch in W.C. (Fatal) Application No.9 of 2002.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati for the appellant and learned advocate Mr. K.B. Maghnani for Page 1 of 9 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 21:03:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/5036/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025 undefined respondent Nos.1 to 4 as well as learned advocate Mr. Krunal Nanavati for respondent No.5. Though served, nobody appeared for respondent No.6. Perused the record.
3. The short facts arising from the record are as under :-
* The deceased was in the employment of opponent No.1 - Company and was doing the work of making boxes and was drawing Rs.71.60 Paisa per day. On 5.5.2000, during the course of employment, upon threats given by the employer from removal of the job, because of the sudden shock, the deceased fell down and expired. * The legal heirs and representatives of deceased claimed compensation from opponents with interest and penalty. Upon service of notice, opponent No.1 - employer filed written statement Exh.28 and denied claim. Opponent No.2 did not file any written statement. Opponent No.3 - insurance company appeared and filed written statement at Exh.37 and denied claim of claimants. Page 2 of 9 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 21:03:11 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/5036/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025 undefined * The evidence was recorded and after considering the evidence, the learned Commissioner partly allowed the compensation by directing all opponents jointly and severally to pay compensation of Rs.1,91,698/- with interest rate of 9% per annum from the date of accident till realization with penalty of 50%. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award, opponent No.3 - insurance company has filed the present appeal.
4. Learned advocate for the appellant has contended that in absence of a positive proof with regard to relationship, the claim application ought to have been rejected. It is further contended that deceased was a contract labourer employed by original opponent No.2 and such evidence is also coming out on record. It is further contended that the accident is not arising out of the employment and the same is nowhere connected with the nature of work. The learned Commissioner has not properly appreciated the Page 3 of 9 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 21:03:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/5036/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025 undefined material available on record and erred in holding the appellant liable for compensation. No other submissions were made except the above.
5. Per contra, learned advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 4 -
original claimants has supported the judgment and award. It is further contended that the employer had assailed the impugned judgment and award by filing First Appeal No.43 of 2009 which came to be dismissed by Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.2.2012. Thus, the question involved in the present appeal is also put to a rest. No other submissions are made except the above.
6. I have considered the submissions canvassed by learned advocates for the respective parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that amount involved in the appeal is a very small amount of Rs.1,91,698/-.
7. The appeal preferred by the original opponent Nos.1 and 2;
namely the employer has also been dismissed by the Page 4 of 9 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 21:03:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/5036/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025 undefined Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.2.2012 in First Appeal No.43 of 2009. The appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 would only be maintainable provided substantial questions of law are involved.
8. In the present case, the challenge by the insurance company is qua appreciation of evidence with regard to relationship of employee and employer and also appreciation of evidence with regard to the happening of the accident. As the appellant could not point out any contrary evidence whereby the reasonings and findings arrived at by learned Commissioner on facts can be disturbed in the present appeal. In my view, the grievance which has been voiced out by the learned advocate for the appellant is touching the question of facts and no substantial question of law is found whereby this Court can reassess and re-appreciate the evidence. As I do not find any substance, the first appeal fails. The same is dismissed. Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent back to Page 5 of 9 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 21:03:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/5036/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025 undefined the concerned Court, forthwith. Interim Relief, if any, stands vacated forthwith. No order as to costs.
9. In view of dismissal of the main matter, connected Civil Application will no longer survive and the same stands disposed of accordingly.
10. At this stage, learned advocate for the appellant has pointed out from the paper-book that by an order dated 13.3.2009 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the Civil Application No.1619 of 2009 in the captioned first appeal. For the sake of convenience, the order is reproduced hereunder:
" The Registry is directed to verify FA No.43 of 2009 wherein the award passed by the WC Commissioner, Bharuch in W.C. (Fatal) Application No.9 of 2002 dated 31.7.2007 is challenged by the employer - the Gujarat Borosil Company and whether under Section 30 of the Act amount awarded by Commissioner is deposited before the Commissioner or not and such certificate of deposit is necessary to be produced before this Court at the time of filing the appeal and thereafter, to entertain the appeal on administrative side, if the statutory requirement under Section 30 of the Act is satisfied by the appellant.
. The WC Commissioner, Bharuch is directed to invest Rs.1,91,698/- in a nationalized Bank in the name of respondents which is deposited by insurance company for a period of three years and FDRs to remain with Nazir of the WC Commissioner and respondent - Claimant - Madhuben wd/o Pravinsinh Rathod is entitled periodical interest from Page 6 of 9 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 21:03:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/5036/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025 undefined the said FDRs till the appeal is finally decided by this Court. . Accordingly, present application is disposed of."
11. Vide Exh.59, the learned Commissioner intimated to the claimants that appellant - insurance company in First Appeal No.5036 of 2007 has deposited the amount of Rs.1,91,698/- which has been invested in fixed deposit and the original FDR was retained by Nazir of that Court. Thereafter, exhibit 60 is an application submitted by the claimants for disbursement of the compensation.
12. By communication dated 28.2.2011 (exhibit 64) original opponent Nos.1 and 2 intimated the learned Commissioner pursuant to the order passed by the High Court in Civil Application No.13826 of 2007 in the captioned appeal, compensation has been deposited. However, by mistake, the employer has referred the First Appeal preferred by the appellant herein. Thereafter, by order dated 31.7.2007, the learned Commissioner directed all opponents to deposit Rs.1,91,698/- and original opponent No.2 was also directed to deposit interest amount at the rate of 9% with penalty at Page 7 of 9 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 21:03:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/5036/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025 undefined the rate of 50%. It is contended by learned advocate for the appellant that the appellant has deposited the principal amount of compensation of Rs.1,91,698/- and it appears that the original opponents have also deposited compensation of Rs.2,27,244/- with the learned Commissioner which includes principal amount, interest and penalty. As per the submissions of learned advocates for both the parties, the said amount is lying with the learned Commissioner without disbursement.
13. Learned advocate for the appellant further contended that the present appellant has also deposited a compensation alongwith the original opponent Nos.1 and 2. Therefore, the question would arise as to refund of the amount of compensation to either the appellant or opponent Nos.1 and 2. For deciding this issue, parties are relegated to the learned Commissioner, Bharuch and upon hearing all the parties, the learned Commissioner shall pass appropriate order for refunding the amount of compensation to the rightful party. The amount lying with the learned Page 8 of 9 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 21:03:11 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/5036/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025 undefined Commissioner shall be disbursed in favour of the claimants after following due process of law and after the order of refund of amount is passed. The exercise of deciding the above stated controversy shall be completed within period a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of this judgment.
14. Direct Service is permitted to respondent Nos.1 to 4, as prayed for.
(D. M. DESAI,J) vk Page 9 of 9 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Mon Nov 24 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Nov 24 21:03:11 IST 2025