Gujarat High Court
Oriental Insurance Co Ltd vs Sakinabibi on 13 July, 2017
Author: Z.K.Saiyed
Bench: Z.K.Saiyed
C/FA/193/2006 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 193 of 2006
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
================================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of
the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of
law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of
India or any order made thereunder ?
================================================================
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD.....Appellant(s)
Versus
SAKINABIBI,WD/O LATE RASUL USMAN SHEIKH"S WIDOW &
5....Defendant(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR SHASHIKANT S GADE, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1 - 6
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
Date : 13/07/2017
ORAL JUDGMENT
[1] This First Appeal is filed by the appellantInsurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act praying to modify the judgment and order dated 16.06.2004 passed by the learned Exofficio Commissioner for Workmen Compensation Act and Judge, Labour Page 1 of 4 HC-NIC Page 1 of 4 Created On Wed Aug 16 04:58:05 IST 2017 C/FA/193/2006 JUDGMENT Court, Godhra in W.C. Application No.594 of 1993, whereby the learned Commissioner directed the Insurance Company to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.44,856/ alongwith interest @ 6% w.e.f. From 11.12.1987 within 30 days and also directed 50% penalty of Rs.22,428/ to respondent No.6.
[2] It is the case of the appellant that deceased respondent No.1 was working with respondent No.6 as a labourer and had put in about 10 years of service. The deceased was doing the stone crushing work and was getting remuneration of Rs.600/ per month. For the work of stone crushing, the respondent No.6 did not have scientific equipment, to prevent the dust created due to stone crushing into the nose and lungs. It was found that the proportion of dust was found more than what was required and because of the same, the deceased suffered from Silicosis disease. The said disease is named as "Silicosis' as per schedule3 part 'C' of the Workmen Compensation Act and the the said disease is known as Occupational Disease because of Silica powder. Initially the deceased took treatment at Anand and thereafter at Godhra in the T.B.Department. Since there was no symptom of T.B, he was discharged from the hospital and on 11.12.1987. Therefore, the deceased died due to Silicosis disease.
[3] Heard Mr. Shashikant Gade, learned advocate for the appellant. Rule issued by this Court is duly served upon the respondents, however, they did not appear.
Page 2 of 4
HC-NIC Page 2 of 4 Created On Wed Aug 16 04:58:05 IST 2017
C/FA/193/2006 JUDGMENT
[4] Mr. Shashikant Gade, learned advocate for the appellant has
submitted that the judgment award passed by the Commissioner is improper, unjust and against the provisions of law. He contended that no medical evidence was produced before the learned Commissioner. He contended that the learned Commissioner has observed that there is minor difference between Tuberculosis and Silicosis, however, because of the said minor difference, the deceased cannot face consequences of T.B. Disease. He then submitted that in present case the deceased has not produced any documentary evidence and certificate worth the name on record in support of her claim. Further, no extra premium is paid by the employer to the Insurance Company for occupational disease. He, therefore, requested to allow the present appeal. [5] Heard the submissions advanced by learned advocate for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment and order. The observations made by the learned Commissioner so also the conclusion arrived by it relying upon the various decisions of this High Court as well other High Courts held that even though medical test is not conducted, but if the other evidences available on record establishes beyond any shadow of doubt the case of the appellant, the compensation is liable to be paid in fatal cases. Further, the observation of the learned Commissioner that the examination of the doctor is must, is also on the basis of various pronouncement of the High Court. The findings arrived at by the learned Commissioner are based on record and nothing Page 3 of 4 HC-NIC Page 3 of 4 Created On Wed Aug 16 04:58:05 IST 2017 C/FA/193/2006 JUDGMENT adverse has been shown to upset the findings and the conclusion arrived at by the learned Commissioner. The conclusion arrived at by the learned Commissioner being just imminent and proper requiring no interference of this Court. The present appeal is therefore, without any merit and deserves to be dismissed. Hence, dismissed. Rule is discharged. Records and proceedings, if any, be sent back to the trial Court, concerned forthwith.
(Z.K.SAIYED, J.) siddharth Page 4 of 4 HC-NIC Page 4 of 4 Created On Wed Aug 16 04:58:05 IST 2017