Gujarat High Court
Kantaben Arjanbhai Kasot vs Veljibhai Shamjibhai Mata on 6 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3525/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3525 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
NO
==========================================================
KANTABEN ARJANBHAI KASOT & ORS.
Versus
VELJIBHAI SHAMJIBHAI MATA & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6
MR. ALKESH N SHAH(3749) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 06/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1 This appeal is filed under Section 30 of the
Workmen's Compensation Act, challenging the
judgment and award dated 06.06.2023 passed in
Workmen Compensation (Fatal) Case No.30 of 2011
by the learned Workmen Compensation
Commissioner, Kachchh at Gandhidham, whereby the
learned Commissioner partly allowed the claim and
directed respondent No.2 to pay compensation of
Rs.2,98,110/- with interest at the rate of 12% per
annum, and further directed respondent No.1 to pay
50% penalty amounting to Rs.1,49,055/-.
1.1 At the outset, learned advocate Mr. Modi
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3525/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025
undefined
submits that so far as the directions issued against
respondent No.1 are concerned, the appellant
does not challenge that part of the award. Hence,
this Court, without issuing notice to respondent
No.1, proceeds to finally decide the present appeal
in the presence of defendant No.2 -- the insurance
company, against whom the impugned directions
are under challenge.
2 It is the case of the present appellant that the
deceased, Lakhmanbhai Karshanbhai Bariya, was
employed as a driver on Truck bearing registration
No. GJ-12-Y-7533, owned by defendant No.1. The
deceased was a heart patient, and on 16.12.2010,
while on a trip to South Gujarat in the course of his
employment, he suffered a heart attack and passed
away within the jurisdiction of Chhani Police Station,
Vadodara. Pursuant thereto, the legal heirs of the
deceased filed Workmen Compensation (Fatal)
Application No.30 of 2011, claiming compensation of
Rs.4,94,210/-. The learned Commissioner, after
considering the evidence on record and assessing the
age of the deceased as 65 years, awarded
compensation of Rs.2,98,110/-, which is the subject
matter of challenge in the present appeal.
3 Heard the learned advocate Mr.Hiren Modi for the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3525/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025
undefined
appellant and the learned advocate Mr.Alkesh Shah
for the defendant.
4 Learned advocate Mr. Modi submits that the present
appeal is confined to challenging the limited
directions issued by the learned Commissioner in
awarding compensation by erroneously considering
the age of the deceased as 65 years. He submits that
the government record, which forms part of the
proceedings, clearly indicates that the deceased was
aged about 47 years at the time of the incident.
However, the learned Commissioner, while
determining the quantum of compensation, has
adopted the factor of 99.37 applicable to the age of
65 years, resulting in an incorrect computation of
compensation. It is, therefore, submitted that the
impugned award deserves to be set aside to the
extent it fails to consider the correct age of the
deceased, i.e., 47 years.
5 Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Shah, appearing for
defendant No.2, submits that the learned
Commissioner, after duly considering the inquest
panchnama, postmortem report, and other medical
documents, has rightly concluded that the age of the
deceased was 65 years at the time of death. He,
therefore, submits that the finding recorded by the
learned Commissioner is based on proper
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3525/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025
undefined
appreciation of evidence on record and does not
warrant any interference. Accordingly, the appeal
deserves to be dismissed.
6 Considering the submissions and on examining the
reasons assigned by the learned Commissioner, more
particularly in relation to the determination of the
age of the deceased, it transpires that the claimant
had produced, in support of the claim, a copy of the
LIC policy at Exhibit 19, wherein the date of birth of
the deceased is mentioned as 01.07.1963. Since the
date of death is 16.12.2010, if the said policy is taken
into consideration, the age of the deceased at the
time of the incident would be 47 years.
7 The paperbook placed on record by the learned
advocate Mr. Modi indicates that, in addition to the
LIC policy, the driving licence produced at Exhibit 18
also reflects the date of birth as 01.07.1963.
However, overlooking these government records, the
learned Commissioner has relied upon the inquest
panchnama and the postmortem report, and has, in
the impugned judgment, observed that the deceased
was 65 years of age at the time of his death.
8 This Court is of the considered view that when a
Government record is produced on record and the
same remains unrebutted by the opponent, reliance
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3525/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/11/2025
undefined
placed upon the inquest panchnama and the post-
mortem report, wherein the age is mentioned without
any supporting contemporaneous documentary
evidence, is manifestly erroneous. In such
circumstances, the impugned award warrants
interference to the extent it proceeds on the premise
that the deceased was aged 65 years at the time of
the incident.
9 Resultantly, this appeal is partly allowed by issuing
the following directions:
(I) The compensation shall be recalculated by
applying the factor of 163.07, considering the age of
the deceased as 47 years, which comes to
Rs.4,89,210/- instead of Rs.2,98,110/-. The difference
amount shall be deposited by the respondent No.2
before the learned Workmen Compensation
Commissioner, along with the interest as directed by
the learned Commissioner, within a period of eight
weeks from today.
(ii) The other directions issued by the learned
Commissioner shall remain unaltered. Upon deposit
of the aforesaid amount, the same shall be disbursed
to the appellant after due verification.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
M.M.MIRZA
