Gujarat High Court
National Insurance Company vs Ashok Chindha Patil on 20 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/744/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 744 of 2010
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
================================================================
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY
Versus
ASHOK CHINDHA PATIL & ANR.
================================================================
Appearance:
MS MEGHA DAVE for MR DAKSHESH MEHTA(2430) for the Appellant(s)
No. 1
MR NA SHAIKH(1098) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
MR NACHIKET A DAVE(5308) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
Date : 20/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned advocate Ms.Megha Dave for learned
advocate Mr.Dakshesh Mehta for the appellant. Learned
advocate Mr. Nachiket A. Dave for respondent No.1 and
learned advocate Mr. N.A. Shaikh for respondent No.2 have
remained absent. Perused the record.
2. The challenge in the present appeal is by the original
opponent No. 2 - Insurance Company challenging the
judgment and award dated 9.9.2008 passed by learned
Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, Bharuch in
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/744/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025
undefined
Workman Compensation Case (Non-Fatal) Case No.7 of
2005.
3. The facts in brief of the case are as under:
* The claimant - present respondent No.1 was
working as a driver on Eicher Tempo No.GJ-16-V-5354 and
was drawing Rs.3,000/- per month + Rs.50/- per day as
daily allowance. Original Opponent No. 1 is the employer
and Opponent No.2 is the insurance company.
* On 7-12-2004, the claimant was proceeding
from Mumbai to Pune by the said Tempo, when the vehicle
reached near Kumbhavadi village around 6.30 am, a truck
which was proceeding ahead of the Tempo, all of a sudden
applied brakes. Resultantly, an accident occurred and
claimant sustained serious injuries all over his body.
* The claimant was admitted in the hospital and
took treatment. The claimant thereafter filed a claim
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/744/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025
undefined
application against the opponents. Opponent No.2-
Appellant appeared and filed a written statement at Exhibit
11 and denied the claim of claimant.
* After considering the evidence on record, the
learned Commissioner allowed the claim application by
directing opponents to pay a compensation of Rs.3,41,208/-
jointly and severally. Opponent No. 1 was directed to pay
interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of
accident till realization with penalty of 50%.
* Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the
impugned judgment and order, the Appellant - Insurance
Company has filed this appeal.
4. At the outset, learned advocate for the Appellant has
proposed following substantial questions of law:
"(1) Whether the findings of the
Learned WC Commissioner, Bharuch is
vitiated because of non-consideration,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/744/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025
undefined
misconstruction and / or misreading of
relevant evidence or by an erroneous
approach to the matter ?
(2) Whether there is an error on the
part of the authority below in relying upon the
evidences produced by the claimant, who are
interested parties. ?
(3) Whether the award passed by the
Learned WC Commissioner is justifiable
without necessary evidences regarding the
permanent partial disability of the claimant ?
(4) Whether the inference to be
defused from facts which are proved in
questions of law ?
(5) Whether the Commissioner is
justified in allowing the claim without
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/744/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025
undefined
conclusive proof of percentage of disability
which are basic necessity for arriving at the
correct amount of compensation ?
5. No other substantial questions of law are proposed except
the above.
6. It is contended by learned advocate for the Appellant that
the learned Commissioner has not properly considered the
facts and has erred in deciding the claim application against
the Appellant. It is also contended that the expenses which
have been alleged to have been incurred by the claimant is
on the excessive side. The applicant was not holding a valid
driving license at the time of accident. It is also contended
that the claimant has not issued any notice under the
Workmen Compensation . It is further contended that there
is no evidence with regard to income of claimant. The
assessment of compensation on the basis of assumption of
income is excessive and without any evidence. Therefore, it
is prayed that claim is required to be rejected. No other
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/744/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025
undefined
submissions are canvassed except the above.
7. I have considered the submissions canvassed by learned
advocate for the appellant and also perused the Record and
Proceedings.
8. It appears from the record that the opponent No. 1, who was
the employer, has chosen to remain absent all throughout
the trial and has suppressed the vital evidence with regard
evidence to the relationship of employee and employer as
well as has also suppressed the income which the claimant
was drawing at the time of accident. The learned
Commissioner has considered the evidence and has also
taken into consideration the examination in chief which has
gone unchallenged from the employer's side. The question
of relationship that of employee and employer is a question
of fact. When material evidence is not placed on record by
the employer, the finding arrived at by the learned
Commissioner is in consonance with the facts pleaded and
proved by claimant and as well as in consonance with law.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/744/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025
undefined
Learned Commissioner while determining compensation has
considered FIR, Panchnama and the medical papers which
were produced on record. It also appears that the amount
involved in the appeal is not a huge amount whereby the
findings of the learned Commissioner can be disturbed,
more particularly, in absence of any contrary material being
pointed out by learned advocate for the appellant to
disbelieve the findings of the fact. So far as substantial
questions of law which have been proposed by the learned
advocate for the appellant, they are nowhere involving any
question of law, much less, substantial questions of law and,
therefore, the present First Appeal lacks merit and it
requires to be dismissed. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed.
9. Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the
concerned authority, forthwith. Interim Relief, if any, stands
vacated forthwith. No order as to costs.
(D. M. DESAI,J)
vk
