[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
United India Insurance Company Ltd vs Haklabhai Harjibhai Sarei on 17 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1200/2015 ORDER DATED: 17/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1200 of 2015
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1199 of 2015
=====================================================
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
Versus
HAKLABHAI HARJIBHAI SAREI & ORS.
=====================================================
Appearance:
MASUMI V NANAVATY(9321) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR ADIL R MIRZA(2488) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
MR VILAV K BHATIA(5338) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
RULE UNSERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
=====================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 17/04/2026
ORDER
1. Heard learned advocate Ms. Masumi V. Nanavaty
appearing for the appellant in both the matters, learned advocate
Mr. Adil R. Mirza and learned advocate Mr. Vilav K. Bhatia
appearing for the respective respondents in both the matters.
2. The appeals arise from the Judgment and award passed in
Workmen Compensation (Fatal) Case Nos.4 of 2007 & 3 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.3,36,000/- & Rs.3,05,775/- respectively,
and with Rs.2,500/- as funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/- as cost
in both the matters.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1200/2015 ORDER DATED: 17/04/2026
undefined
3. Factual aspect is that deceased Mukesh & Sarjulal were
serving as Laborer with Shri Sushant Steel and on 17.04.2006,
they had gone for labour work for removing debris at Kharvel,
whereby a gas pipeline explosion took place and they suffered
burns and during treatment lost their life at the age of 20 & 32
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 matters. Even otherwise, the amount involved
in the subject matter of present First Appeals 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 appeals, the
Court is not inclined to entertain the present appeals and
therefore, present appeals stand dismissed on account of
smallness of amount. However, it is clarified that dismissal of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1200/2015 ORDER DATED: 17/04/2026
undefined
present appeals shall not be construed that the Court has
decided any legal issue involved in the subject matter of present
appeals, and therefore, the decision of present appeals 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 claimants in both the matters.
(J.C. DOSHI, J.)
Raj
