[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
United India Insurance Company Ltd vs Laxmiben Rameshbhai Garasiya on 17 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1198/2015 ORDER DATED: 17/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1198 of 2015
=====================================================
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
Versus
LAXMIBEN RAMESHBHAI GARASIYA & ORS.
=====================================================
Appearance:
MASUMI V NANAVATY(9321) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
DELETED for the Defendant(s) No. 4
MR ADIL R MIRZA(2488) for the Defendant(s) No. 5
MR VILAV K BHATIA(5338) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
NOTICE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,3
=====================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 17/04/2026
ORDER
1. Heard learned advocate Ms. Masumi V. Nanavaty
appearing for the appellant, learned advocate Mr. Adil R. Mirza
appearing for the respondent No.5 and learned advocate Mr.
Vilav K. Bhatia for the respondent No.2. Notice is served, but
respondent No.1. Notice is served upon respondent Nos.1 and 3,
but they have chosen not to appear.
2. The appeal arises from the Judgment and award passed in
Workmen Compensation (Fatal) Case No.5 of 2007 by
Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Labour Court,
Valsad is challenged under Section 30 of the Employees
Compensation Act, 1923 by the Insurance Company. Learned
Commissioner for Workman Compensation proceeded to grant
compensation of Rs.2,95,590/- with Rs.2,500/- as funeral
expenses and Rs.5,000/- as cost.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1198/2015 ORDER DATED: 17/04/2026
undefined
3. Factual aspect is that deceased Rameshbhai serving as
Laborer with Shri Sushant Steel and on 17.04.2006, he had
gone for labour work for removing debris at Kharvel, whereby a
gas pipeline explosion took place and he suffered burns and
during treatment lost his life at the age of 35 years.
4. Learned advocate Ms. Masumi V. Nanavaty raised
contention that accident took place outside the insured
premises, and therefore, Commissioner of Workman
Compensation cannot grant compensation under Employees
Compensation Act, 1923. However, the said issue has been
discussed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Daivshala v/s.
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. [AIR 2025 SC 3532], whereby, it is
held that if person dies in accident during the course of reaching
to employment or reaching home after completing his service, it
would fall within principle of notional extension of employment
and therefore, compensation is liable to be assessed under
Employees Compensation Act, 1923.
5. Having heard the submissions made at bar by learned
advocates, in opinion of this Court, no substantial question of
law involves in the matter. Even otherwise, the amount involved
in the subject matter of present First Appeal is on lower side i.e.
less than Rs.5,00,000/- and therefore, considering the smallness
of the awarded amount involved in the present appeal, the Court
is not inclined to entertain the present appeal and therefore,
present appeal stand dismissed on account of smallness of
amount. However, it is clarified that dismissal of present appeal
shall not be construed that the Court has decided any legal issue
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1198/2015 ORDER DATED: 17/04/2026
undefined
involved in the subject matter of present appeal and therefore,
the decision of present appeal shall not be treated as precedent
for deciding any legal issue. Interim relief granted earlier, if any,
stands vacated. Record and proceedings, if any, be sent back to
learned Trial Court concerned.
6. Learned Commissioner concerned for Workman
Compensation is directed to disburse amount of the
compensation awarded to original claimant.
(J.C. DOSHI, J.)
Raj
