Gujarat High Court
Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company ... vs Jashiben Jashubhai Parmar on 15 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3370/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3370 of 2018
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
==========================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================
IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
Versus
JASHIBEN JASHUBHAI PARMAR & ORS.
==========================================
Appearance:
MR NILESH A PANDYA(549) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR P C CHAUDHARI(5770) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
Date : 15/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Present appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter be referred to as "the Act") filed by the appellant - Insurance Company against the judgment and award dated 03.06.2017 passed by the learned Workmen's Compensation Commissioner (Labour Court), Ahmedabad [hereinafter be referred to as "the Labour Court"] in W.C. (Fatal) No. 127 of 2007 whereby the Labour Court has allowed the application and awarded compensation along with the penalty and interest.
2. Brief facts of the present case are that original claimant -
Page 1 of 8 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Sep 22 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 22 21:27:07 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3370/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025 undefined Jashubhai Somabhai Parmar was working with respondent No.2 - Company as a permanent employee since 05.06.1996 and was earning Rs.100/- per day. That on 30.04.2007 when the claimant was on duty, due to leakage of poisonous gas, he was suffering health problem and he was immediately admitted in the hospital of Dr.Deepak G. Bavatiya at Naroda, Ahmedabad where he was treated immediately. Thereafter, on 02.05.2007, the claimant was transferred in Anand Surgical Hospital and kept in ICU and during the course of treatment, the original claimant - Jashubhai expired.
2.1 The legal heirs of the claimant has filed the aforesaid claim application seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.2,20,272/-. The appellant had filed written statement at Exhibit 15 and respondent No.2 had also filed written statement before the Labour Court.
2.2 The Labour Court has, after considering the submissions of both the sides, framed the following issues at Exhibit 9.
(1) Whether the claim application is time barred? (2) Whether the applicant proves that there was a employee -
employer relationship between the deceased and the opponent? (3) Whether the deceased met with an accident while he was on duty at the opponent?
(4) What was the age and monthly salary of the deceased at the time of death?
(5) Whether the applicant is entitled to receive the compensation amount, penalty and interest as well as expenses of the deceased as requested in the application?
(6) What order?
2.3 The Labour Court has answered the aforesaid issue No.1 in the
negative, issue Nos.2 and 3 in the positive.
2.4 The Labour Court has, after considering the oral as well as
Page 2 of 8
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Sep 22 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 22 21:27:07 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3370/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025
undefined
documentary evidence and the submissions, allowed the claim application and awarded compensation along with the 50% penalty and 12% interest.
3. Being aggrieved, the appellant - Insurance Company has filed the present appeal.
4. Heard Mr.Nilesh Pandya, learned counsel for the appellant - Insurance Company and Mr.P. C. Chaudhari, learned counsel for respondent - claimant. Perused the material available on record.
5. Mr.Pandya, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted the same facts which are narrated in the memo of appeal has submitted that there was no employee and employer relationship, however, without considering the same, the Labour Court has awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs.2,36,472/- along with 9% interest and 50% penalty. He has submitted that so far as the liability of penalty is concerned, the Labour Court has fastened the same upon original opponent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally. He has submitted that the Labour Court has committed serious error in considering the case of the claimant and though no sufficient evidence was produced before the Labour Court with regard to the employee and employer relationship, however, the Labour Court has passed the impugned judgment and award. He has submitted that though the appellant has entered into the contract with original opponent No.1 and original opponent No.2 - the contractor under whom the deceased was working, the appellant is not liable to pay the indemnified risk under the policy issued under the Workmen's Compensation Act and only opponent No.1 is liable to pay and without considering the said fact, the Labour Court has passed the judgment and award which is Page 3 of 8 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Sep 22 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 22 21:27:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3370/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025 undefined jurisdictional error in nature and substantial question of law and, therefore, the present appeal is maintainable.
5.1 Mr.Pandya, learned counsel has submitted that at the time of admission of the present appeal, on 27.08.2018, the Court has, while admitting the appeal, framed the following substantial questions of law.
(A) When the insurance policy only covers the accidental injuries and/or death, whether the WC Commissioner can pass an award and order granting compensation to a person, who died due to the natural death?
(B) Whether the Workman Commissioner has rightly considered that the insurance company is liable as an insurer and whether the risk is covered or not?
(C) When the postmortem report clearly provided that the deceased died due to the heart attack, can the WC Commissioner interpret that because of the stress during the service, the deceased suffered health problem and subsequently died due to the heart attack?
5.2 Mr.Pandya, learned counsel has submitted that the deceased was died in the premises of opponent No.1, however, he was not working directly under the supervision of opponent No.1 and he was appointed through opponent No.2 and there was no contract with the appellant along with opponent No.2 and, therefore, the appellant is not liable and responsible for indemnified the death of the deceased and the appellant is not liable to pay the compensation. He has submitted that so far as the liability to pay the penalty and interest is concerned, the direction to pay the same is against opponents No.1 and 2 jointly and severally and, therefore, the said liability ought not to have fastened upon the appellant. Mr.Pandya, learned counsel has submitted that the appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned Page 4 of 8 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Sep 22 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 22 21:27:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3370/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025 undefined judgment and order deserves to be quashed and set aside.
6. Mr.Chaudhari, learned counsel for the respondent - claimant has submitted that the deceased was working in the factory of opponent No.1 and while he was working, he died and his death was proved by the medical evidence and after considering all relevant facts, the Labour Court has rightly passed the impugned judgment and award and held the insurance company liable to pay the compensation. He has submitted that the cause of death was supported by the medical evidence and it is also admitted that the deceased was working in the factory premises and, therefore, the appellant was rightly held indemnified. He has emphasized upon the written statement filed by opponent No.1 and submitted that opponent No.1 has contended in the written statement that the policy insured under the appellant and deceased was indemnified. He has submitted that opponent No.2 has not filed any written statement and even not examined to that effect and, therefore, under such circumstances, the judgment and award passed by the Labour Court is in consonance with the settled principle of law and there is no any illegality and infirmity in the impugned judgment and award passed by the Labour Court. He has submitted that the appeal being meritless deserves to be dismissed and the impugned judgment and award passed by the Labour Court deserves to be confirmed.
7. Though served, original opponent No.1 has chosen not to appear before the Court and they have not challenged liability qua the penalty and interest. Even opponent No.1 has not led any evidence before the Labour Court with regard to the death occurred in premises or whether there was any contract or not and the deceased was working under the contractor and without considering the oral as well Page 5 of 8 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Sep 22 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 22 21:27:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3370/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025 undefined as documentary evidence, the Labour Court has passed the impugned judgment and award and held the appellant liable to pay the compensation.
8. It is worthwhile to refer to Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 reads as under:-
"30. Appeals.- (1) An appeal shall lie to the High Court from the following orders of a Commissioner, namely:--
(a) an order awarding as compensation a lump sum whether by way of redemption of a half-monthly payment or otherwise or disallowing a claim in full or in part for a lump sum;
[(aa) an order awarding interest or penalty under section 4A;]
(b) an order refusing to allow redemption of a half-monthly payment;
(c) an order providing for the distribution of compensation among the dependants of a deceased workman, or disallowing any claim of a person alleging himself to be such dependant;
(d) an order allowing or disallowing any claim for the amount of an indemnity under the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 12; or
(e) an order refusing to register a memorandum of agreement or registering the same or providing for the registration of the same subject to conditions:
Provided that no appeal shall lie against any order unless a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal, and in the case of an order other than an order such as is referred to in clause (b), unless the amount in dispute in the appeal is not less than ten thousand rupees.
Provided further that no appeal shall lie in any case in which the parties have agreed to abide by the decision of the Commissioner, or in which the order of the Commissioner gives effect to an agreement come to by the parties:
[Provided further that no appeal by an employer under clause (a) shall lie unless the memorandum of appeal is accompanied by a Page 6 of 8 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Sep 22 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 22 21:27:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3370/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025 undefined certificate by the Commissioner to the effect that the appellant has deposited with him the amount payable under the order appealed against.] (2) The period of limitation for an appeal under this section shall be sixty days.
(3) The provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963)], shall be applicable to appeals under this section."
9. Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both the sides and the facts and circumstances of the case, the issues involved in the present appeal are that whether the Labour Court has committed any error while passing the impugned judgment and award and whether the appeal is maintainable under Section 30 of the Act. It appears that the Labour Court has, while assigning the reasons decided issue No.2 more particularly in para - 21, considered the fact that at the time of accident the deceased was working in the factory owned by opponent No.1 and during the course of the employment of the deceased, he was suffering health problem and he was taken to the nearest hospital where during the course of treatment, he died. It also appears that the Labour Court has, after considering the oral evidence led by the deceased and the written statement filed by opponent No.1, rightly passed the judgment and award and there is no any infirmity with regard to the reasoning recorded by the Labour Court. The appellant has cross-examined the wife of the deceased before the Labour Court and the Labour Court, after considering the oral evidence more particularly cross-examination of the wife of the deceased and facts of the case, has passed the impugned judgment and award and there is no any illegality and infirmity in the judgment and award.
10. So far as the penalty and interest is concerned, the Labour Page 7 of 8 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Sep 22 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 22 21:27:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3370/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/09/2025 undefined Court has directed the original opponents No.1 and 2 to pay the penalty and interest and the same is not fastened upon the Insurance Company. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Labour Court has not committed any error of law and facts in passing the judgment and award. It is pertinent to note that the amount involved in the appeal is only Rs.2,07,740/- and on the ground of smallness of the amount, the present appeal is liable to be dismissed.
11. In view of the above, the present appeal is dismissed. As per the order passed by the Court on 27.08.2018, the appellant - Insurance Company has deposited 30% amount which came to be withdrawn by the claimant. The appellant is directed to deposit 70% amount before the concerned Court within a period of eight weeks from today. On depositing the amount, the same shall be disbursed in favour of the claimant after following due procedure and after verifying the bank details through the RTGS / NEFT along with interest accrued thereon from the date of application till its realization. It is open for the claimant to make appropriate proceedings against the opponents No.1 and 2 for recovery of the amount of penalty and interest which shall not come in the way of the appellant. Registry is directed to transmit back the record and proceedings to the concerned Court forthwith. Connected application/s, if any, shall stand disposed of.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) V.R. PANCHAL Page 8 of 8 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Sep 22 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 22 21:27:07 IST 2025