[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Swatiben W/O Vikramsinh Chavda vs Rahulkumar Kodarbhai Prajapati on 3 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2802/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2802 of 2023
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR AMENDMENT) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2802 of 2023
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
NO
==========================================================
SWATIBEN W/O VIKRAMSINH CHAVDA & ORS.
Versus
RAHULKUMAR KODARBHAI PRAJAPATI & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MR TANMAY B KARIA(6833) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 03/02/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1 This appeal is filed under Section 30 of the
Workmen's Compensation Act challenging the
judgment and order dated 30.04.2022 passed in
Workmen's Compensation (Fatal) Case No.2 of 2019
by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation,
Banaskantha at Palanpur, whereby the application
filed by the present appellant-original claimant came
to be dismissed.
Factual Matrix:
2 It is the case of the present appellants that the
deceased, Vikrambhai Naransinh Chavda, who was
the son of appellant Nos.3 and 4 and the husband of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2802/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2026
undefined
appellant No.1, was working as a driver with
respondent No.1. While he was on duty on
24.10.2018 and returning from Kedarnath in a Tata
Tiago car bearing Registration No. GJ-08-BH-0297,
the vehicle met with an accident as a cow suddenly
came on the road. Claiming compensation of
Rs.14,66,529/- along with interest and penalty, the
legal heirs of the deceased filed a claim petition
before the learned Commissioner.
3 The learned Commissioner, while deciding the claim
petition, framed the following issues and answered
them accordingly.
(1) Whether the applicants have proved that, at the
time of the fatal accident suffered by the deceased, they
were the lawful dependents of the deceased?
Answer is in Partly Affirmative
(2) Whether the applicants have proved that, at the
time of the fatal accident, there existed a relationship of
employer and employee between the deceased and the
opponent?
Answer is in Negative
(3) Whether the applicants have proved that the
accidental death of the deceased occurred during the
course of employment or arose out of and in the course
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2802/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2026
undefined
of employment under the opponent?
Answer is in Negative
(4) Whether the applicants have proved that, at the
time of the accident, the deceased was of the age and
earning the income as stated in the application?
Answer is in Negative
(5) Whether the applicants have proved that they are
entitled to receive the statutory compensation amount
payable under the Employees' Compensation Act from
the opponents? If so, what amount are they entitled to
receive?
Answer is in Negative
(6) Whether the opponents are liable to pay interest
and penalty to the applicants? If so, from whom are
the applicants entitled to recover the amount of interest
and penalty?
Answer is in Negative
(7) What order is to be passed?
As per final order.
3.1 On consideration of the evidence on record in
support of the said issues, the learned Court
dismissed the claim petition on the ground that,
accident did not occur, during the course of his
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2802/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2026
undefined
employment. The said finding is the subject matter
of challenge before this Court.
4 Heard the learned advocate Mr.Hiren Modi for the
appellant and learned advocate Mr.Tanmay Karia for
the defendant.
Submissions on behalf of the learned advocate
for the appellant:
5 Learned advocate Mr. Hiren Modi submits that the
learned Commissioner has appreciated the evidence
in an erroneous manner. It is contended that though
claimant No.3 had specifically denied the suggestion
put forth by the learned advocate for the insurance
company to the effect that, owing to friendly
relations with Vipulbhai, who is the brother of
opponent No.1, the deceased had travelled in the car
for the purpose of paying a religious visit to
Kedarnath, the learned Commissioner has failed to
consider the said denial in its proper perspective.
5.1 It is further submitted by learned advocate Mr.
Modi that no dispute was ever raised by
respondent No.1 with regard to the existence of
the employer-employee relationship. Despite the
same, the learned Commissioner has rejected the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2802/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2026
undefined
claim filed by the present appellants, which
according to him, is unsustainable in law and on
facts.
5.2 It is further contended that the learned
Commissioner has committed a grave error in
placing reliance solely on the First Information
Report and in discarding other cogent evidence
available on record. On this ground also, it is
submitted that the impugned judgment and order
deserves to be interfered with by this Court.
5.3 In support of his submissions, learned advocate
Mr. Modi has relied on the decision of the Apex
Court in the case of National Insurance
Company Ltd. v. Chamundeswari and Others,
rendered in Civil Appeal No.6151 of 2021, and has
submitted that where the evidence led before the
Tribunal runs contrary to the contents of the FIR,
the evidence recorded before the Tribunal is
required to be given due weightage over the
contents of the First Information Report.
5.4 Learned advocate Mr. Modi in the memo of the
appeal has framed the following substantial
questions of law:
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2802/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2026
undefined
4.1) Whether the Commissioner has totally failed to
appreciate the evidence properly and legally and as such
has caused injustice to the appellants?
(4.2) Whether the commissioner totally erred in holding
that the deceased was not the employee of respondent no.1
at the time of accident?
(4.3) Whether the commissioner erred in dismissing the
claim petition of the appellants without appreciating the
evidences and other documentary proofs?
(4.4) Whether the learned commissioner justified in not
awarding any amount of compensation under section 30 of
the Employees Compensation Act?
(4.5) Whether the learned commissioner is justified in
not awarding the amount of compensation with interest as
per the section 4 and 4(A) of the Employees Compensation
Act?
6 By making the above averments it is prayed to allow
the first appeal and to set aside the impugned
judgment.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2802/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2026
undefined
Submissions on behalf of the learned advocate
for the appellant:
7 Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Tanmay Karia,
appearing for defendant No.2, submits that the
learned Commissioner, after duly appreciating and
evaluating the evidence placed on record, more
particularly the admissions made by claimant No.3,
has rightly concluded that the accident did not occur
during the course of employment.
7.1 It is submitted by the learned advocate Mr.
Karia that no evidence whatsoever was produced
by the claimants to establish that the deceased
was working with respondent No.1 at the relevant
point of time. It is further submitted that not only
the overall evidence on record, but even the First
Information Report lodged in respect of the
accident clearly suggests that the deceased had
driven the vehicle owing to his friendly relations
with the brother of respondent No.1.
7.2 In view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, it is contended that the learned
Commissioner has not committed any error, either
in law or on facts, in dismissing the claim petition
filed by the claimants.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2802/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2026
undefined
Moot Question:
8 Having considered the submissions made by the
learned advocates for the respective parties, the
moot questions that arise for consideration before
this Court are whether the accident occurred during
the course of employment with defendant No.1 and
whether the learned Commissioner has committed
any error in dismissing the claim petition.
Answer is in negative.
9 To determine the aforesaid questions, certain
undisputed facts are required to be set out, which are
reproduced hereinbelow:
9.1 The accident in question occurred on
24.10.2018, wherein the deceased Vikrambhai was
driving a car owned by respondent No.1 and was
returning from Kedarnath along with Vipulbhai, the
brother of respondent No.1, and two other friends,
namely Yasinbhai and Bhaveshbhai. In the said
accident, Vikrambhai and Vipulbhai both
succumbed to the injuries, while the other two
occupants sustained injuries. The factum of the
accident is supported by Exhibit-20, being the First
Information Report lodged by one Pravinbhai
Prajapati, who is the uncle of Vipulbhai. It is stated
in the FIR that Vipulbhai, Vikrambhai, and their
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2802/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2026
undefined
friends had gone to Kedarnath and, while returning
therefrom, the accident occurred due to the
overturning of the car, resulting in the death of
two persons.
9.2 On perusal of the oral evidence of appellant
No.3, it emerges that the father of the deceased
Vikrambhai admitted that, owing to friendly
relations with the deceased Vipulbhai, all of them
had gone to Kedarnath in the car owned by
respondent No.1, who is the brother of Vipulbhai. It
is also undisputed that no documentary evidence
was produced on record to establish the employer-
employee relationship between the deceased and
respondent No.1. During cross-examination, the
father of the deceased further stated that he was
unaware of the address of the office of Rahulbhai
and also did not know the nature of business
carried on by him. Additionally, no evidence was
placed on record to show that the deceased was
being paid any salary by respondent No.1.
9.3 In the aforesaid background, the learned
Commissioner was justified in concluding the claim
petition by holding that the accident did not occur
during the course of and arising out of
employment. The judgment relied upon by the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2802/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2026
undefined
learned advocate Mr.Modi, wherein the version in
the FIR and the oral evidence were found to be
contradictory and it was held that greater
weightage is to be given to the evidence recorded
before the Tribunal, would not be applicable to the
facts of the present case.
10 In the instant case, not only in the First
Information Report, but also during the cross-
examination conducted below Exhibit-70, an
admission was made by appellant No.3 that all of
them had gone to Kedarnath due to friendly relations
with Vipulbhai. In view of the aforesaid, no error has
been committed by the learned Court, and the
appeal deserves to be dismissed.
11 Resultantly, the present appeal stands
dismissed. The judgment dated 30.04.2022 passed
by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner,
Banaskantha at Palanpur in Workmen's
Compensation (Fatal) Case No.2 of 2019 is hereby
confirmed. Consequently, the Civil Application also
stands disposed of.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
M.M.MIRZA
