Sidik Karimbhai vs Javed Abdul Gaffarbhai Sorathiya & 2 on 30 March, 2017

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Sidik Karimbhai vs Javed Abdul Gaffarbhai Sorathiya & 2 on 30 March, 2017

Bench: G.R.Udhwani

                   C/SCA/20754/2015                                                 ORDER




                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                      SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20754 of 2015
         ==========================================================
                          SIDIK KARIMBHAI....Petitioner(s)
                                     Versus
              JAVED ABDUL GAFFARBHAI SORATHIYA & 2....Respondent(s)
         ==========================================================
         Appearance:
         MR. HEMAL SHAH, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
         DS AFF.NOT FILED (N) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 , 3
         MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
         NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1 , 3
         ==========================================================
          CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.UDHWANI

                                        Date : 30/03/2017


                                          ORAL ORDER

1. The workman who had suffered injuries to an extent 18% of body as a whole in so far as his earning capacity is concerned, is aggrieved by the award passed under the Workmen Compensation Act to an extent of the deposit of the major part of the compensation awarded to him. The authority under the Workmen Compensation Act is obligated to invest the compensation computed under the Workmen Compensation Act under the judgment given by this Court in Civil Application No. 11706 of 2006 in First Appeal No.3830 of 2006 to Civil Application No.11716 of 2006 in First Appeal No. 3840 of 2006. The guidelines to be followed by the Workmen Compensation Authority are akin to those applicable in the cases of accident claims arising under the Motor Vehicles Act.

Page 1 of 2

HC-NIC Page 1 of 2 Created On Fri Mar 31 02:18:27 IST 2017 C/SCA/20754/2015 ORDER

2. The only contention for relaxation of the said condition as urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, in view of the fact that the petitioner workman had suffered injuries, substantial amount ought not to have been deposited in the fixed deposit scheme. Reliance is placed upon A.V. Padma and others v. R. Venugopal and others [2012(1) GLH 442] to contend that the guidelines are not required to be mechanically followed in each case. The Supreme Court in A. V. Padma (supra) reiterated the circumstances under which the compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act is to be invested as also the circumstances under which the relaxation is to be given.

3. It is not pointed out by the petitioner as to how there exists a special circumstance in his favour to avail of the relaxation. It is not his case that he falls in one of the exceptional circumstances as indicated in A. V. Padma (supra). No substance is therefore found in this application. The same must fail and therefore rejected with no order as to costs.

(G.R.UDHWANI, J.) syed/ Page 2 of 2 HC-NIC Page 2 of 2 Created On Fri Mar 31 02:18:27 IST 2017

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Gujarat High Court