Gujarat High Court
Bhailalbhai Mohanbhai Makwana vs Daxaben Wd/O Dahyabhai on 10 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/211/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 211 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
================================================================
BHAILALBHAI MOHANBHAI MAKWANA
Versus
DAXABEN WD/O DAHYABHAI & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR PRABHAKAR UPADYAY(1060) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR SUBRAMANIAM IYER(2104) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
Date : 10/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 10.10.2019 passed in Workman Compensation (Fatal) Application No.5 of 2011 by the learned Workman Compensation Commissioner, Vadodara.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Prabhakar Upadyay for the appellant and learned advocate Mr. Subramaniam Iyer for the respondents. Perused the record.
3. The short facts of the case are as under: Page 1 of 12 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 16 22:22:21 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/211/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined
4. The deceased Dahyabhai Madhavbhai Makvana was working in the field of opponent No.1 and while spraying pesticides in the field of opponent No.1, due to the effect of pesticides, deceased expired. The incident occurred on 30.10.2010. The legal heirs of the deceased filed claim application against the appellants - original opponents. The claim application was resisted by opponents by filing written statement. Claimant No.1 examined herself at Exh.12 and also examined one witness Ramanbhai Tadvi at exhibit 34. After considering the evidence, learned commissioner partly allowed claim application and directed opponents to pay compensation of Rs.3,11,793/- with interest @ 9% p.a. with penalty @ 15% on Rs.3,11,793/- and proportionate cost. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order, the appellant preferred first appeal being First Appeal No.20 of 2016. Vide order dated 26.2.2019, the coordinate bench of this Court remanded the matter back to the learned Commissioner for a fresh adjudication on the question of Page 2 of 12 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 16 22:22:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/211/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined cause of death. The permission was also granted to both the sides to produce oral as well as documentary evidence. On remand, the learned Commissioner, after hearing the parties, allowed the claim application by holding that the deceased has died due to the effect of poisonous pesticides. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award, the appellant has filed this appeal.
5. The learned advocate for the appellant contended that after remand, the claimants produced only a certificate dated 24-03-2011 issued by the Medical Officer of Samuhik Arogya Kendra, Por, Vadodara (Exh.58). It is further contended that when the certificate was produced, an objection was raised with regard to contents of the said certificate. Learned commissioner, relying upon the decision of Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat reported in 2001(3) SCC 1, admitted the documents and gave exhibit to the said certificate. It is further contended that except the above certificate, no other medical Page 3 of 12 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 16 22:22:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/211/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined evidence is produced by the claimant to prove a fact that the cause of death of deceased is due to effect of poisonous pesticide. No postmortem report, treatment papers have been produced by the claimants. The doctor who issued certificate Exhibit 58, has also not been examined. The learned Commissioner committed an error by relying upon the said certificate and the oral deposition of the witness Ramanbhai Tadvi recorded in Exhibit 34 and came to a conclusion that the cause of death is the effect of poisonous pesticide.
6. It is further contended that the claimant who relied upon a receipt issued by Vadodara Mahanagar Sevasadan, dated 30.10.2010 is not proved by the claimants, and the same being a xerox copy, a reliance cannot be placed upon such unproved document. He has placed reliance upon decision of Mackinnon Mackenzie and Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Ibrahim Mahmmed Issak reported in 1969(0) GLEHL-SC 16256 and contended that in the case of death by accident, the burden of proof rests on the workmen to Page 4 of 12 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 16 22:22:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/211/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined prove that the accident arose out of employment as well as in the course of employment. In the present case, in the absence of any medical evidence in establishing the cause of death, appeal deserves to be allowed by setting aside the judgment and order.
7. Per contra, learned advocate for the respondent has supported the judgment and order and contended that it is a proved fact that on the date of incident, the deceased was working on the field of appellants and while spraying pesticides in the field due to effect of pesticide, deceased fell down on the field and, thereafter, was taken to medical officer Samuhik Arogya Kendra, Por, District Vadodara and, thereafter, upon the medical advice, he was admitted at SSG Hospital, Vadodara for expertise treatment. Exhibit 58 is a certificate issued by the Medical Officer of Samuhik Arogya Kendra, which is a substantive proof that the deceased had died due to the effect of pesticides. An inference can be drawn from the facts based on record and more particularly the oral deposition of the witness Page 5 of 12 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 16 22:22:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/211/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined Ramanabhai Tadvi, who has stated that the deceased was working in the field of opponents and he saw deceased spraying pesticides in the field on the date of incident. It is further contended that the provisions of the Workmen Compensation Act is a benevolent legislation and a strict proof of evidence is not required. No other submissions are made except the above.
8. I have heard learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the Record & Proceedings.
9. The claim application of the claimants came to be partly allowed by the learned Commissioner on 18th January 2014, against which the present appellants filed first appeal being first appeal No.2908 of 2016. In Paragraph Nos.7, 8, 9 & 14, the Coordinate Bench of this Court has discussed the facts and has remanded the matter back to the Learned Commissioner. The relationship of employer and employee between appellant and the deceased are upheld by this Court and on the limited question of cause of death Page 6 of 12 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 16 22:22:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/211/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined on account of the effect of toxic medicines to the deceased, the matter was remanded back. On remand, the claimant produced Certificate Exhibit 58, dated 24.3.2011, issued by the Medical Officer of Samuhik Arogya Kendra, Por, Vadodara. The said certificate states that the deceased was admitted for unknown poisoning at 3.20 pm and was admitted to the Samuhik Arogya Kendra, Por, Vadodara. The State Medical Officer referred deceased to physician at SSG Hospital Vadodara for expertised treatment. The said certificate was resisted by the appellant when it was produced. The learned Commissioner, instead of deciding the objection raised by the appellant, referred and relied upon the decision of Bipin Shantilal (Supra) and gave exhibit to the the said Certificate. Except certificate exhibit 58, claimant respondent has not produced any other medical evidence, such as treatment papers, post-mortem report. The learned Commissioner has relied upon Exhibit 58 certificate and the oral deposition of a witness recorded at Exhibit 34 and came to a conclusion that the deceased has expired due to Page 7 of 12 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 16 22:22:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/211/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined the poisonous pesticide and retained the earlier order passed by the learned Commissioner dated 18.1.2014.
10. The only limited question which requires to be answered is whether a certificate Exhibit 58 is sufficient and material medical evidence in determining the cause of death of deceased. The law on the question of burden of proof to establish a fact that the injury by accident arose both out of and in the course of employment rests upon the workman. In the decision of Mackinnon Mackenzie and Co. Pvt. Ltd. (Supra), in paragraph 6, the Honourable Apex Court has held as under:
"6. In the case of death caused by accident the burden of proof rests upon the workman to prove that the accident arose out of employment as well as in the course of employment. But this does not mean that a workman who comes to court for relief must necessarily prove: it by direct evidence. Although the onus of proving that the injury by accident arose both out of and in the course of employment rests upon the applicant these essentials may be inferred when the facts proved justify the inference. On the one hand the Commissioner must not surmise, conjecture or guess; on the other hand, he may draw an inference from the proved facts so long as it is a legitimate inference. It is of course impossible to. lay down any rule as to the degree of (1) [1917] A.C. 352. proof which is sufficient to justify an inference being drawn, but' the evidence must be such as would induce a reasonable man to draw it. Lord Birkenhead L.C. in Lancaster v. Blackwell Colliery Co. Ltd., ( 1 ) observed:
"If the facts which are proved give rise to conflicting inferences of equal degrees of probability so that the choice between them is a mere matter of conjecture, then, of course, the applicant fails to prove his case because it is Page 8 of 12 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 16 22:22:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/211/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined plain that the onus in these matters is upon the applicant. But where the known facts are not equally consistent, where there is ground for comparing and balancing probabilities as to their respective value, and where a reasonable man might hold that the more probable conclusion is that for which the applicant contends, then the Arbitrator is justified in drawing an inference in his favour."
11. The Honourable Apex Court has observed that though the onus of proving injury by accident arose both out of and in the course of employment rests upon the applicant. On the other hand, must not surmise, conjuncture or guess, an inference may be drawn from proved facts so long as it is a legitimate inference. It is impossible to lay down any rule as to degree of proof which is sufficient to justify an inference being drawn, but the evidence must be such as would induce a reasonable man to draw an inference.
12. Keeping in mind the aforesaid principle of law laid down by the Honourable Apex Court, if the facts on hand are examined, it appears that injury arose both out of and in the course of employment. The evidence indicates that the deceased was in the employment of appellants on the date of accident and the relationship has been upheld and confirmed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court while Page 9 of 12 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 16 22:22:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/211/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined remanding the matter back to the learned Commissioner.
13. So far as the question of cause of death is concerned, undisputedly, except certificate Exhibit 58 and the oral deposition of an eyewitness, there is no other material available on record. The contention of the appellants in the Written Statement is to the extent of denial of the happening of the accident in the field of appellants and further denied the claim of the claimants on the ground that the deceased was working in the adjoining field and was not working on the field of the opponents.
14. Learned advocate for the appellants could not point out from the record to establish a fact that the deceased was not working in the field owned by appellants on the date of accident but was working in a neighboring field. Further, the claimants have examined an eyewitness, Raman Tadvi Tadvi (Exhibit 34), who has deposed that he saw deceased spraying pesticides in the field of appellant on the date of accident and the wife of the deceased shouted for help and Page 10 of 12 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 16 22:22:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/211/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined the said witness thereafter reached at the place of incident and the deceased was sent to the hospital. This oral deposition of an eyewitness and certificate Exhibit 58 established one fact that deceased on the date of incident was spraying pesticides in the field of appellants and therefore, an inference can be drawn from such material that the cause of death is due to the effect of pesticides.
15. No contrary evidence is found on record to nullify inference drawn by leaned Commissioner in relying upon the oral deposition of an eyewitness and the certificate (Exhibit 58). The Workmen Compensation Act is a benevolent legislation which is enacted for safeguarding the interests of the employee and / or legal representatives of the deceased employee in getting a fair and reasonable compensation in cases where the employee has received injuries or has succumbed due to injury arising out of and in the course of employment. Strict proof under Indian Evidence Act is not required to discharge initial burden. The owner of the field has not led any evidence that the pesticide which was Page 11 of 12 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 16 22:22:21 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/211/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined being used in the field was not poisonous and deceased has not died while spraying pesticides.
16. In view of the above facts and view of the above discussions, the first appeal is rejected as no substantial questions of law could be found in the present first appeal. The substantial questions of law which were proposed by the learned advocate for the appellant are more related to the facts rather than the law.
17. Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith. Interim Relief, if any, stands vacated forthwith.
(D. M. DESAI,J) vk Page 12 of 12 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 16 22:22:21 IST 2025