Gujarat High Court
Shantibhai Kalubhai Panchal vs Omprakash Shriramji Kachhva on 26 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/5112/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 5112 of 2010
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
==========================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
-
==========================================
SHANTIBHAI KALUBHAI PANCHAL & ORS.
Versus
OMPRAKASH SHRIRAMJI KACHHVA & ORS.
==========================================
Appearance:
MS ARCHANA R ACHARYA(2475) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3
MR ARJUN M PADHIYAR(10586) for the Defendant(s) No.
1.1,1.2,1.3,1.5
MR KUNTAL A JOSHI(6269) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
MR P P MAJMUDAR(5284) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1.4,2
==========================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
Date : 26/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Present appeal is filed by the appellants - original claimants under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act against the impugned judgment and award dated 20.08.2009 passed by the learned Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation Act and Judge, Labour Court, Palanpur [hereinafter be referred to as "the learned Page 1 of 7 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Oct 06 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 05:11:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/5112/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined Commissioner"] in W.C. Application (New) No. 106 of 1996 [W.C. Application (Old) No.2 of 1992] whereby the learned Commissioner allowed the application and awarded compensation along with the interest.
2. Facts of the present case are that appellants No.1 and 2 and father-in-law of appellant No.3 Kalubhai Haribhai Panchal was working as driver with respondent No.1 (deceased Kalubhai Haribhai Panchal) was driving the Jeep bearing Registration No. GRO-163 of respondent No.1 and getting Rs.1000/- per month as remuneration. That on 10.09.1991, Kalubhai Panchal was driving the Jeep and was going from Bhoyani to Palanpur, during that nearby Manjripara at the time of taking turn the Jeep became turtle, due to which Kalubhai sustained serious injury and admitted in Deesa Civil Hospital where he died because of the injury. The legal heirs of deceased Kalubhai Haribhai Panchal preferred W.C. Application No. 2 of 1992 before the Labour Court, Palanpur, which came to be allowed and awarded the compensation along with the interest as aforesaid. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed.
3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties at length and perused the material on record.
3.1 Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted the same facts which are narrated in the memo of appeal and has submitted that the learned Commissioner has completely overlooked and ignored the provisions of Section 4 of the Workmen's Compensation Act which reads thus:-
"4. amount of compensation - (1) Subject to the provision of this Act - the amount of compensation shall be as follows Page 2 of 7 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Oct 06 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 05:11:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/5112/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined namely :-
(A) Where the death result from the injury - an amount equal to 50% of the monthly wages of the deceased workman multiplied by the relevant factor or An amount of 80,000/- which ever is more."
3.2 Learned counsel for the appellants has emphasized upon the provision of Section 4(A) of the Act and submitted that in the present case, the amount of compensation is less than Rs.80,000/- whichever is required to be awarded by the learned Commissioner. Learned counsel has submitted that so far as the interest at the rate of 6% is concerned, the learned Commissioner has committed serious error in awarding interest from the date of filing of examination-in-chief instead of from the date of accident. Learned counsel has also submitted that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Commissioner is very meager and, therefore, the same deserves to be enhanced. It is submitted that the learned Commissioner awarded the interest from the date of filing of examination-in-chief under the provision of Order 18 which is unjust, illegal and erroneous, in fact, the penalty and interest are required to be awarded from the date of accident because on reading the provision of Section 4(A) of the Act, it is crystal clear that the respondents are liable to pay the penalty and compensation from the date of accident within thirty days and they have to deposit additional amount of compensation failing which they are liable to pay penalty at the rate of 50% meaning thereby that from the date on which it was fallen due the respondents are liable to pay the interest from the date of accident and penalty. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the learned Commissioner has failed to appreciate the provision of Section 4(A) of sub-clause (3)(a) and (b) of the Act, which reads thus:-
Page 3 of 7 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Oct 06 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 05:11:59 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/5112/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined "4-A Compensation to be paid when due and penalty for default -(1) Compensation under Sec. 4 shall be paid as soon as it falls due.
(2) In cases where the employer does not accept the liability for compensation to the extent claimed he shall be bound to make provisional payment based on the extent of liability which he accepts, and, such payment shall be deposited with the Commissioner or made to the workman, as the case may be, without prejudice to the right of the workman to make any further claim.
(3) Where any employer is in default in paying the compensation due under this Act within one month from the date it fell due, the Commissioner shall
(a) direct that the employer shall, in addition to the amount of the arrears, pay simple interest thereon at the rate of twelve percent per annum or at such higher rate not exceeding the maximum of the lending rates of any schedule bank as may be specified by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, on the amount due and no (b) if, in this opinion, there is justification for the delay, direct that the employer shall, in addition to the amount of arrears and interest thereon, pay a further sum not exceeding fifty percent of such amount by way of penalty."
3.3 Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the observation made by the learned Commissioner with regard to the delay is concerned, it is not at the behest of the appellants and, therefore, the learned Commissioner has committed an error in passing the award.
3.4 Learned counsel for the appellants has referred to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Vs. Jayashreeben Nandulal Nerkar (Patil) and others reported in 2008 (3) GLR 2004. The relevant observation made by the Apex Court in para - 47 reads as under:-
"47. For the reasons stated hereinabove and the binding decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pratap Narayan Singh Deo (supra), it has to be held that the starting point for payment of Page 4 of 7 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Oct 06 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 05:11:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/5112/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined compensation in the Workmens Compensation Act would be the date of accident and not from the date of adjudication of the claim, and therefore, the liability to pay the interest and penalty would arise from the date of accident and the interest on the amount of compensation as required to be paid under Sec. 4A(3)(a) of the Act, is required to be paid on completion of one month from the date of accident and not from the date of adjudication."
3.5 Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that in view of the settled legal principle, the respondents are liable to pay the interest from the date of accident. Learned counsel has submitted that the present appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment and order deserves to be quashed and set aside and/or modified appropriately.
4. Learned counsel for legal heirs of respondent No.1 has submitted that the learned Commissioner has not committed any error of law and facts in passing the impugned judgment and award. Learned counsel has submitted that the questions of law cannot be said that the same are to be substantial questions of law and, therefore, the appeal may not be entertained. Learned counsel for legal heirs of respondent No.1 has submitted that the deceased was working as driver with original opponent No.1 and because of his own negligence the accident occurred and he was died during the course of treatment. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the appeal being meritless deserves to be dismissed.
5. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for both the sides and material placed on record. I have perused the impugned judgment and award and the record and proceedings of the case and oral as well as documentary evidence. It is the submissions on the part of the learned counsel for the appellants that the learned Commissioner ought to have awarded an Page 5 of 7 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Oct 06 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 05:11:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/5112/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined amount of Rs.80,000/- instead of Rs.39,748/- in view of the provision of Section 4A of the Act. It cannot be read as isolation, in fact, the application was rightly decided by the learned Commissioner because at the time of accident, the deceased was working as driver, who was aged about 65 years with original opponent No.1 and accepted the postmortem note and there was no other evidence produced by the appellants before the learned Commissioner with regard to the age of the deceased and, therefore, after considering the relevant factors, the learned Commissioner has rightly passed the impugned judgment and award. So far as the quantum is concerned, the learned Commissioner has committed an error while awarding the interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing of the examination-in-chief of the appellant. In fact within 30 days from the date of accident, the respondents No.1.1 to 1.5 are liable to pay the amount of compensation and in default of payment, they are liable to pay interest and penalty from the date of accident and instead of date of accident and/or instead of filing of the application of compensation. From the material on record, it appears that the learned Commissioner has committed serious error of law and facts in awarding interest from the date of filing of the affidavit i.e. examination-in-chief and, therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed in part. So far as the liability to pay the interest is concerned, it is from the date of filing of the application as it was held by this Court. So far as the amount of compensation is concerned, the learned Commissioner has rightly considered the amount of Rs.39,748/-, but the said amount is due and payable from the date of accident and the same is not paid and, therefore, the amount of interest is from the date of filing of the application and not from filing of affidavit i.e. examination-in-chief.
Page 6 of 7 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Oct 06 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 05:11:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/5112/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined
6. So far as respondent No.2 - Insurance Company is concerned, the respondent No.1 has not produced any document to show that the Insurance company is liable for the payment in question. Whether the policy was in existence at the time of accident. Whether the vehicle is insured with the Insurance Company. The learned Commissioner accepted the documents and absorbed the liability on the part of the Insurance Company as there was no material produced before the learned Commissioner with regard to the involvement of the vehicle insured with respondent No.2.
7. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award is modified to the extent that the amount of compensation along with 6% interest is from the date of filing of the application till its realization. So far as the penalty is concerned, the learned Commissioner has rightly awarded 50% penalty. The respondents No.1.1 to 1.5 are directed to deposit the amount of compensation along with 6% interest within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the appellants shall take appropriate action for execution of the decree passed by the Court. Decree be drawn accordingly. Registry is directed to transmit back the record and proceedings of the case to the concerned Court forthwith. There shall be no order as to costs.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) V.R. PANCHAL Page 7 of 7 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Oct 06 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 05:11:59 IST 2025