Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Gujarat High Court

Vijaykumar Chiranjilal Modi vs Nathubhai Fatabhai Dodiyar & 2 on 28 February, 2017

Author: R.P.Dholaria

Bench: R.P.Dholaria

                    C/FA/2342/2016                                                 ORDER



                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
                                     FIRST APPEAL NO. 2342 of 2016
                                                   With
                                CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10703 of 2016
                                                    In
                                     FIRST APPEAL NO. 2342 of 2016
         ==========================================================
                         VIJAYKUMAR CHIRANJILAL MODI....Appellant(s)
                                            Versus
                       NATHUBHAI FATABHAI DODIYAR & 2....Defendant(s)
         ==========================================================
         Appearance:
         MR AJ YAGNIK, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1
         MR P C CHAUDHARI, ADVOCATE for the Defendant(s) No. 1 - 2
         MR VC THOMAS, ADVOCATE for the Defendant(s) No. 3
         ==========================================================
           CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLARIA

                                           Date : 28/02/2017
                                            ORAL ORDER

ORDER IN FIRST APPEAL Heard. Admit. 

Mr.P.C. Chaudhari, learned advocate waives service of notice  of admission for and on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr.V.C.  Thomas, learned advocate waives service of notice of admission for  and on behalf of respondent No.3. 

The   following   substantial   questions   of   law   arise   for  determination of this Court in the present appeal:

1. Whether   the   Lower   Court   was   justified   in   assessing   the   monthly income of the workman to be Rs.2,900/­ particularly in   view   of   the   Explanation­2   of   Section   4   of   the   unamended   Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 with effect from 15.9.1995  applicable to the facts of present case. 

2. Whether   the   Lower   Court   was   justified   in   including   the  Page 1 of 4 HC-NIC Page 1 of 4 Created On Mon Aug 14 01:47:08 IST 2017 C/FA/2342/2016 ORDER amount of 'Bhattha' in the monthly wages of the workman more   particularly   in   view   of   the   definition   of   'wages'   provided   in  Section 2(m) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. 

3. Whether   the   Lower   Court   has   erred   in   directing   the   appellant   to   pay   the   interest   over   principal   amount   of   compensation particularly in view of the fact that policy issued  by the insurance company is under the provisions of the Motor   Vehicles Act.

4. Whether   the   Lower   Court   was   justified   in   directing   the  appellant   to   pay   interest   without   considering   various   binding  decisions. 

5. Whether the Lower Court was justified in not appreciating   properly and interpreting various provisions of the unamended   Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 with effect from 15.9.1995. 

6. Whether the Lower Court was justified in imposing penalty  to the extent of 50% of principal amount of compensation upon   the   appellant   without   assigning   any   proper   and/or   justifiable  reasons for the same. 

ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATION

1. Rule.   Mr.P.C.   Chaudhari,   learned   advocate   waives  service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 

2.  Mr.V.C.   Thomas,   learned  advocate   waives  service   of  notice  of  Rule for and on behalf of respondent No.3. 

2. Mr.Valmik Vyas, learned advocate appearing for Mr.A.J.  Yagnik, learned advocate for the applicant­appellant submits that  the   amount   deposited   by   the   Insurance   Company   is   already  disbursed to the original claimants and now in the present matter,  the amount of penalty as well as interest deposited by the owner of  Page 2 of 4 HC-NIC Page 2 of 4 Created On Mon Aug 14 01:47:08 IST 2017 C/FA/2342/2016 ORDER vehicle may not be disbursed till final disposal of appeal. 

3. Whereas,   Mr.P.C.   Chaudhari,   learned   advocate   for  respondent   Nos.1   and   2   submits   that   accident   occurred   on  2.10.1999 for about 18 years ago and therefore, he prays that some  amount out of the said deposited amount may be released to the  claimants during the pendency of this appeal. 

4. Heard Mr.Valmik Vyas, learned advocate appearing for  Mr.A.J.   Yagnik,   learned   advocate   for   the   applicant­appellant,  Mr.P.C. Chaudhari, learned advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2  and  Mr.V.C. Thomas, learned advocate respondent No.3.  

5. Upon   considering   the   submissions   made   by   learned  advocates for the respective parties, the learned Commissioner is  directed to disburse 30% of the amount deposited by the present  appellant   in   favour   of   the   original   claimants  and   the   remaining  70% of the deposited amount shall be invested in cumulative F.D.R.  which shall be renewed periodically till final disposal of the appeal.  However, it is clarified that 70% of the deposited amount shall not  be encashed by the claimants till the final disposal of appeal.  

6. With  these directions,  execution  and  operation  of  the  impugned   judgment   and   award   is   hereby   stayed   till   the   final  disposal   of   the   present   appeal.   The   present   application   stands  disposed of. Rule is made absolute accordingly. 

(R.P.DHOLARIA,J.) Page 3 of 4 HC-NIC Page 3 of 4 Created On Mon Aug 14 01:47:08 IST 2017 C/FA/2342/2016 ORDER ali Page 4 of 4 HC-NIC Page 4 of 4 Created On Mon Aug 14 01:47:08 IST 2017