Gujarat High Court
Regional Director vs Damodar Nandlal on 30 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2000/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2000 of 2012
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
REGIONAL DIRECTOR
Versus
DAMODAR NANDLAL
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SACHIN D VASAVADA(3342) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
SERVED BY AFFIX. (R) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
Date : 30/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal is filed by the appellant-Employees
State Insurance Corporation (hereinafter be referred to
as the "Corporation") under Section 82 of the Employees
State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter be referred to as
the 'ESI Act") against the judgment and order dated
02.05.2012 passed by the learned Employees State
Insurance Court, Ahmedabad (hereinafter be referred to
as the "ESI Court") in ESI Second Appeal No. 03 of 2009,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2000/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025
undefined
whereby the ESI Court partly allowed the appeal filed by
the respondent-employee and enhanced the assessment
of permanent disability from 0% to 10%.
2. The facts giving rise to present appeal are that the
respondent-employee was working with M/s. Anil Starch
Process Ltd. and was an insured person under the
provisions of the ESI Act. On 08.09.2005, while on duty,
the employee sustained injuries when hot oil splashed
into both his eyes while checking a burner. He was
immediately sent to the ESI Hospital for treatment and
was later treated at the Bapunagar General Hospital from
08.09.2005 to 16.09.2005.
2.1 After recovery, the employee claimed to have suffered
partial loss of vision in both eyes, resulting in reduction of
earning capacity. The Medical Board, after examining the
employee and considering the medical records, assessed
0% permanent disability. The employee preferred an
appeal before the Medical Appellate Tribunal (MAT),
which, by order dated 26.07.2006, confirmed the Medical
Board's assessment of 0% disability.
2.2 Thereafter, the employee filed Second Appeal No. 03
of 2009 before the ESI Court. The ESI Court after hearing
both the sides and after evaluating the evidence placed
on record by order dated 02.05.2012, enhanced the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2000/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025
undefined
assessment of disability from 0% to 10%, holding that the
employee had partially lost vision as per the medical
papers produced from the Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad.
2.3 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said
judgment and order passed by the ESI Court, the
appellant corporation has preferred present appeal.
3. Heard Mr. Sachin D. Vasavada, learned counsel for the
appellant. Though served by affixing notice, the
respondent has chosen not to appear before the Court.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the Corporation has
submitted that the ESI Court has committed a serious
error in enhancing the percentage of disability from 0%
to 10% without any medical or clinical basis. He has
submitted that the ESI Court failed to appreciate that
neither the Medical Board nor the Medical Appellate
Tribunal found any functional or visual loss.
4.1 Learned counsel for the appellant has further
submitted that the ESI Court has enhanced the disability
solely on the basis of assumption and conjecture, without
examining any medical expert or obtaining a fresh
ophthalmological assessment. He has submitted that the
Civil Hospital papers relied upon by the ESI Court were
never produced before the Medical Authorities, nor were
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2000/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025
undefined
they supported by any competent medical witness. He has
submitted that the findings of the Medical Board and
MAT were based on due examination and sound medical
reasoning; hence, there was no justification for
interference.
4.2 Leaned counsel for the appellant further submitted
that the impugned judgment and order enhancing the
disability from 0% to 10% is arbitrary and contrary to the
settled principles of law, and the same deserves to be set
aside or suitably modified.
5. I have gone through the relevant material and
documents produced on record. I have also perused the
record and proceedings as well as impugned judgment
and order passed by the ESI Court.
6. Upon perusal of the record, it appears undisputed that
the respondent sustained injuries during the course of
employment and had undergone treatment at the ESI
Hospital as well as Bapunagar General Hospital. The
Medical Board and MAT both assessed 0% permanent
disability. However, the ESI Court, relying upon the Civil
Hospital report showing vision of 6/18 in both eyes,
enhanced the disability to 10%.
7. It is observed that the ESI Court did not examine any
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2000/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025
undefined
medical expert nor called for any clarificatory report from
the Medical Board to corroborate the alleged reduction in
visual capacity. The finding of 10% disability appears to
have been reached mainly on presumption and without
sufficient medical evidence. At the same time, the Civil
Hospital record indicating partial diminution of vision
cannot be totally ignored, as it emanates from a
recognized ophthalmological institute. Hence, while the
assessment of 0% by the Medical Authorities seems too
low, enhancement to 10% without any corroborating
expert evidence also appears excessive.
8. Considering the overall facts, the nature of injury, and
the absence of functional loss demonstrated by any
medical testimony, this Court is of the opinion that
assessment of 5% permanent partial disability would
meet the ends of justice.
9. In view of the above discussion, present appeal is
partly allowed. The impugned order dated 02.05.2012
passed by the learned ESI Court in Second Appeal No. 03
of 2009 is modified to the extent that the percentage of
permanent disability shall be reduced from 10% to 5%.
10. The respondent-employee is entitled to all
consequential benefits payable under the ESI Act @ 5%
permanent disability and on the basis of that, the amount
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2000/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025
undefined
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
