Gujarat High Court
United India Insurance Co Ltd vs Madhuben Wd/O Pravinsinh Rathod on 20 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/5036/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 5036 of 2007
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2007
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 5036 of 2007
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD
Versus
MADHUBEN WD/O PRAVINSINH RATHOD & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
K K MAGHNANI(7543) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MR K B MAGHNANI(9673) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MR KUNAL NANAVATI for M/S. NANAVATI ASSOCIATES(1375) for the
Defendant(s) No. 5
NOTICE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 6
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
Date : 20/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. By way of present First Appeal, the appellant - original
opponent No.3 has challenged the judgment and award
dated 31.7.2007 passed by the learned Commissioner,
Bharuch in W.C. (Fatal) Application No.9 of 2002.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati for the
appellant and learned advocate Mr. K.B. Maghnani for
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/5036/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025
undefined
respondent Nos.1 to 4 as well as learned advocate Mr.
Krunal Nanavati for respondent No.5. Though served,
nobody appeared for respondent No.6. Perused the record.
3. The short facts arising from the record are as under :-
* The deceased was in the employment of opponent
No.1 - Company and was doing the work of making boxes
and was drawing Rs.71.60 Paisa per day. On 5.5.2000,
during the course of employment, upon threats given by
the employer from removal of the job, because of the
sudden shock, the deceased fell down and expired.
* The legal heirs and representatives of deceased
claimed compensation from opponents with interest and
penalty. Upon service of notice, opponent No.1 - employer
filed written statement Exh.28 and denied claim. Opponent
No.2 did not file any written statement. Opponent No.3 -
insurance company appeared and filed written statement
at Exh.37 and denied claim of claimants.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/5036/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025
undefined
* The evidence was recorded and after considering the
evidence, the learned Commissioner partly allowed the
compensation by directing all opponents jointly and
severally to pay compensation of Rs.1,91,698/- with
interest rate of 9% per annum from the date of accident till
realization with penalty of 50%. Being aggrieved and
dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award,
opponent No.3 - insurance company has filed the present
appeal.
4. Learned advocate for the appellant has contended that in
absence of a positive proof with regard to relationship, the
claim application ought to have been rejected. It is further
contended that deceased was a contract labourer
employed by original opponent No.2 and such evidence is
also coming out on record. It is further contended that the
accident is not arising out of the employment and the
same is nowhere connected with the nature of work. The
learned Commissioner has not properly appreciated the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/5036/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025
undefined
material available on record and erred in holding the
appellant liable for compensation. No other submissions
were made except the above.
5. Per contra, learned advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 4 -
original claimants has supported the judgment and award.
It is further contended that the employer had assailed the
impugned judgment and award by filing First Appeal No.43
of 2009 which came to be dismissed by Coordinate Bench
of this Court vide order dated 17.2.2012. Thus, the
question involved in the present appeal is also put to a
rest. No other submissions are made except the above.
6. I have considered the submissions canvassed by learned
advocates for the respective parties and on perusal of the
record, it appears that amount involved in the appeal is a
very small amount of Rs.1,91,698/-.
7. The appeal preferred by the original opponent Nos.1 and 2;
namely the employer has also been dismissed by the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/5036/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025
undefined
Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.2.2012
in First Appeal No.43 of 2009. The appeal under Section 30
of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 would only be
maintainable provided substantial questions of law are
involved.
8. In the present case, the challenge by the insurance
company is qua appreciation of evidence with regard to
relationship of employee and employer and also
appreciation of evidence with regard to the happening of
the accident. As the appellant could not point out any
contrary evidence whereby the reasonings and findings
arrived at by learned Commissioner on facts can be
disturbed in the present appeal. In my view, the grievance
which has been voiced out by the learned advocate for the
appellant is touching the question of facts and no
substantial question of law is found whereby this Court can
reassess and re-appreciate the evidence. As I do not find
any substance, the first appeal fails. The same is
dismissed. Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent back to
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/5036/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025
undefined
the concerned Court, forthwith. Interim Relief, if any,
stands vacated forthwith. No order as to costs.
9. In view of dismissal of the main matter, connected Civil
Application will no longer survive and the same stands
disposed of accordingly.
10. At this stage, learned advocate for the appellant has
pointed out from the paper-book that by an order dated
13.3.2009 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
the Civil Application No.1619 of 2009 in the captioned first
appeal. For the sake of convenience, the order is
reproduced hereunder:
" The Registry is directed to verify FA No.43 of 2009
wherein the award passed by the WC Commissioner, Bharuch
in W.C. (Fatal) Application No.9 of 2002 dated 31.7.2007 is
challenged by the employer - the Gujarat Borosil Company
and whether under Section 30 of the Act amount awarded by
Commissioner is deposited before the Commissioner or not
and such certificate of deposit is necessary to be produced
before this Court at the time of filing the appeal and
thereafter, to entertain the appeal on administrative side, if
the statutory requirement under Section 30 of the Act is
satisfied by the appellant.
. The WC Commissioner, Bharuch is directed to invest
Rs.1,91,698/- in a nationalized Bank in the name of
respondents which is deposited by insurance company for a
period of three years and FDRs to remain with Nazir of the
WC Commissioner and respondent - Claimant - Madhuben
wd/o Pravinsinh Rathod is entitled periodical interest from
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/5036/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025
undefined
the said FDRs till the appeal is finally decided by this Court.
. Accordingly, present application is disposed of."
11. Vide Exh.59, the learned Commissioner intimated to the
claimants that appellant - insurance company in First
Appeal No.5036 of 2007 has deposited the amount of
Rs.1,91,698/- which has been invested in fixed deposit and
the original FDR was retained by Nazir of that Court.
Thereafter, exhibit 60 is an application submitted by the
claimants for disbursement of the compensation.
12. By communication dated 28.2.2011 (exhibit 64) original
opponent Nos.1 and 2 intimated the learned Commissioner
pursuant to the order passed by the High Court in Civil
Application No.13826 of 2007 in the captioned appeal,
compensation has been deposited. However, by mistake,
the employer has referred the First Appeal preferred by the
appellant herein. Thereafter, by order dated 31.7.2007, the
learned Commissioner directed all opponents to deposit
Rs.1,91,698/- and original opponent No.2 was also directed
to deposit interest amount at the rate of 9% with penalty at
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/5036/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025
undefined
the rate of 50%. It is contended by learned advocate for
the appellant that the appellant has deposited the principal
amount of compensation of Rs.1,91,698/- and it appears
that the original opponents have also deposited
compensation of Rs.2,27,244/- with the learned
Commissioner which includes principal amount, interest
and penalty. As per the submissions of learned advocates
for both the parties, the said amount is lying with the
learned Commissioner without disbursement.
13. Learned advocate for the appellant further contended that
the present appellant has also deposited a compensation
alongwith the original opponent Nos.1 and 2. Therefore,
the question would arise as to refund of the amount of
compensation to either the appellant or opponent Nos.1
and 2. For deciding this issue, parties are relegated to the
learned Commissioner, Bharuch and upon hearing all the
parties, the learned Commissioner shall pass appropriate
order for refunding the amount of compensation to the
rightful party. The amount lying with the learned
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/5036/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2025
undefined
Commissioner shall be disbursed in favour of the claimants
after following due process of law and after the order of
refund of amount is passed. The exercise of deciding the
above stated controversy shall be completed within period
a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of this
judgment.
14. Direct Service is permitted to respondent Nos.1 to 4, as
prayed for.
(D. M. DESAI,J)
vk
