Gujarat High Court
Regional Director vs Bipinchandra Gopalbhai on 30 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1997/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1997 of 2012
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
REGIONAL DIRECTOR
Versus
BIPINCHANDRA GOPALBHAI
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SACHIN D VASAVADA(3342) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR NIRAV V JOSHI(3806) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
Date : 30/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present First Appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated 2.5.2012 passed by learned Employees' State Insurance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "the Corporation") in ESI Second Appeal No. 22 of 2010, whereby the learned ESI Court modified the decision of the Medical Appellate Tribunal (MAT) rendered in Appeal (M.A.T.) No. 58 of 2009 and enhanced the assessment of permanent disability from 20% to 30%.
Page 1 of 7 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 06:57:55 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1997/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025 undefined
2. The facts giving rise to present appeal are that the respondent-employee was an insured workman under the Employees' State Insurance Scheme. On 21.05.2008, during the course of his employment, he sustained serious injuries on his left leg, particularly near the knee and ankle region. Due to the said injuries, he was admitted as an indoor patient in the Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad, from 21.05.2008 to 09.10.2008. The medical record indicates that he had suffered a fracture of the tibia and fracture around the knee joint, leading to stiffness of the knee and ankle and some degree of deformity.
2.1 The case was referred to the Medical Board for assessment of permanent disability. After clinical examination, the Medical Board opined that the employee had suffered 20% permanent disability and recorded the diagnosis as follows:
"Healed fracture distal tibia (left) operated, injury to ankle and knee with deformity and partial stiffness of the knee and ankle with functional loss and hence awarded 20% disability."
2.2 Being dissatisfied, the employee preferred an appeal before the Medical Appellate Tribunal (MAT) No. 58 of 2009, which, after examination, confirmed the findings of the Medical Board and maintained the assessment of 20% Page 2 of 7 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 06:57:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1997/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025 undefined permanent disability.
2.3 The employee thereafter filed a Second Appeal before the ESI Court, contending that due to stiffness in the leg, insertion of plates, swelling, difficulty in walking, sitting, and using squatting toilets, as well as inability to perform previous work or ride a bicycle, his disability should be assessed at 40% instead of 20%.
2.4 The Corporation resisted the appeal, contending that the injury was a non-schedule injury, that both the Medical Board and MAT had assessed the disability on the basis of medical evidence and expert examination, and that there was no medical evidence on record to justify any enhancement beyond 20%.
2.5 The learned ESI Court, after recording the evidence and observing the employee personally, held that he suffered functional difficulty in walking and movement due to stiffness and accordingly enhanced the disability from 20% to 30%.
2.6 Being aggrieved by the said enhancement, the appellant-Corporation has preferred the present appeal under Section 82 of the Employees' State Insurance Act 1948.
3. Heard Mr. Sachin D. Vasavada, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Nirav V. Joshi, learned counsel for the Page 3 of 7 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 06:57:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1997/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025 undefined respondent.
4. Learned advocate for the appellant-Corporation has submitted that the impugned judgment of the ESI Court is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to medical evidence. he has submitted that no fresh medical or clinical examination was carried out by the ESI Court before enhancing the percentage of disability. He has submitted that the findings of the Medical Board and MAT, being based on expert medical evidence, ought not to have been interfered with.
4.1 He has submitted that the ESI Court enhanced the disability without assigning valid or cogent reasons and without reference to any medical witness or expert opinion. He has submitted that the observations of the ESI Court were based on presumptions and conjectures rather than evidence on record. He has submitted that both the expert bodies (Medical Board and MAT) had found that the fracture had healed and that only partial stiffness remained, which was adequately compensated by 20% disability. Therefore, the ESI Court's interference was unjustified, and the original assessment of 20% permanent disability deserves to be restored.
5. On the other hand, learned advocate for the respondent-employee has supported the impugned judgment of the ESI Court. He has submitted that the Page 4 of 7 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 06:57:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1997/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025 undefined employee sustained serious injuries to his left leg, including fractures at the knee and ankle, leading to permanent stiffness. He has submitted that employee cannot walk without support, cannot squat or bend his leg, and has swelling and pain while standing or moving.
5.1 Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the plates inserted during surgery have not been removed, and as a result, he faces functional loss in day- to-day activities and difficulty in performing his duties as a worker. He has submitted that the ESI Court personally observed the employee and rightly appreciated his functional incapacity, justifying the enhancement to 30% disability.
6. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the record, it is evident that both the Medical Board and the Medical Appellate Tribunal (MAT) are statutory expert bodies empowered to assess the extent of disability. The record shows that the Medical Board had assessed the permanent disability at 20%, taking into account deformity, partial stiffness, and functional limitation. The MAT, consisting of a Judicial Officer, a Medical Assessor, and a Trade Union Representative, confirmed the said assessment after due examination.
7. The learned ESI Court, while enhancing the disability Page 5 of 7 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 06:57:55 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1997/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025 undefined to 30%, has not referred to any additional medical evidence or expert opinion supporting a higher assessment. The finding appears to be based primarily on the personal observation of the employee's movement and on assumptions about possible future difficulty in employment.
8. It is well-settled law that when the extent of disability is assessed by expert medical authorities constituted under the ESI Act, their opinion carries significant evidentiary value and should not be interfered with unless shown to be perverse or contrary to record.
9. In the present case, there is no contrary medical evidence produced by the employee to justify enhancement of disability from 20% to 30%. The ESI Court, being not a medical expert, could not have enhanced the percentage solely on the basis of observation without corresponding clinical or expert medical proof.
10. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the ESI Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in modifying the medical assessment made by expert authorities without any supporting medical material. The findings of the Medical Board and MAT were based on proper evidence and reasoning and deserve to be restored.
Page 6 of 7 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 06:57:55 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1997/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025 undefined
11. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is hereby allowed. The judgment and order dated 2.05.2012 passed by the learned ESI Court in ESI Second Appeal No.22 of 2010 is hereby quashed and set aside. The findings of the Medical Appellate Tribunal in Appeal (MAT) No. 58 of 2009, assessing the permanent disability of the respondent-employee at 20%, are hereby confirmed.
12. The respondent-employee is entitled to all consequential benefits payable under the ESI Act @ 20% permanent disability and on the basis of that, the amount of compensation is to be calculated by the Corporation and to be paid to the respondent herein, after proper verification of his bank details and after following due procedure through RTGS/NEFT.. There shall be no order as to costs. Record and proceedings, if received, be sent back to the concerned ESI Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) SURESH SOLANKI Page 7 of 7 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Wed Oct 08 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 06:57:55 IST 2025