Gujarat High Court
Vipinbhai Rayjibhai Bhill vs Dgp And Igps (Gandhinagar) on 11 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/605/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 605 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
VIPINBHAI RAYJIBHAI BHILL
Versus
DGP AND IGPS (GANDHINAGAR) & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR R G DWIVEDI(6601) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS. HIMANI SHAH, AGP for the Defendant(s) No. 1
MR. M. R. PRAJAPATI for MR VC THOMAS(5476) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 11/02/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal is preferred under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923(hereinafter referred to as the "Act") assailing the judgment and order dated 22.02.2017 passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation in Non- Fatal Case No. 17 of 2011, whereby the claim petition filed by the appellant-workman came to be dismissed on Page 1 of 14 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Wed Feb 18 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:35:03 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/605/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined the ground that the claimant had failed to establish loss of earning capacity as contemplated under the provisions of the Act.
2. The case of the appellant herein, who was the original claimant before the learned Commissioner, is that he was serving as a Sub-Inspector at the Railway Police Station, Dabhoi. It is his case that on 10.05.2011, while he was on official duty and proceeding on his Government motorcycle bearing Registration No. GJ-06- G-1613 to depose before the learned Court at Jetpurpavi in connection with a Railway case, at about 1:00 p.m., near Lotia Chowkdi, his motorcycle collided with a truck, as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries, including fracture of the right tibia and fibula. It is further the case of the claimant that on account of the injuries sustained in the course of and arising out of employment, he preferred a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- under the provisions of the Act. Upon issuance of summons, the opponent No.2 appeared and contested the claim. It was contended that no pecuniary loss had been caused to the claimant inasmuch as he was neither terminated from service nor Page 2 of 14 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Wed Feb 18 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:35:03 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/605/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined subjected to reduction in rank on account of the alleged injuries. It was further contended that as per the applicable Government rules and regulations, the claimant continued to receive periodical increments and promotions, and therefore, no loss of earning capacity could be said to have occurred. The opponent also submitted that the medical documents produced, such as the injury certificate and other medical papers, did not reflect any history of the alleged accident and, therefore, the essential ingredients for grant of compensation under the Act were not satisfied. It was additionally contended that no documentary evidence regarding the occurrence of the accident, ownership of the vehicle, or proof of income was produced and, in absence thereof, it could not be presumed that the claimant had suffered any loss attributable to the alleged accident. It has also been contended that the claimant's promotions were effected strictly in accordance with his seniority and established service rules. As of the present date, he is serving in the capacity of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DySP). In view of the same, it cannot be said that the claimant has suffered any loss, Page 3 of 14 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Wed Feb 18 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:35:03 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/605/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined much less any loss of earning capacity, on account of the alleged injury. On the aforesaid grounds, dismissal of the claim petition was sought. In light of the pleadings and submissions of the parties, the learned Commissioner framed the necessary issues for determination and answered the same accordingly, which is reproduced herein below:-
":: ISSUES & REPLIES ::
(1) Whether there existed a master-servant relationship between the Applicant (Workman) and the Opponent?
In Affirmative.
(2) Whether the Applicant met with an accident during
the duty hours of his employment and as a part of such duty?
In Affirmative.
(3) If yes, what percentage of permanent disability has
the workman suffered due to the injuries?
In Negative.
(4) What were the monthly salary and the age of the
workman at the time of the accident?
Age: 47 years and Monthly Salary: Rs. 8,000/-.
(5) Whether the Applicant is entitled to receive
compensation from the Opponents? If yes, how much?
In Negative.
(6) Whether the Applicant is entitled to receive penalty,
interest, and costs from the Opponents in addition to the accident compensation? If yes, how much?
In Negative."
2.1. Ultimately, upon appreciation of the oral and
Page 4 of 14
Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Wed Feb 18 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:35:03 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/605/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026
undefined
documentary evidence on record, the learned
Commissioner came to the conclusion that the claimant had failed to prove loss of earning capacity as required under the Act and, consequently, dismissed the claim petition. The said judgment and order are under challenge in the present appeal before this Court.
3. Heard learned advocate Mr. R. G. Dwivedi for the appellant and learned advocate Mr. M. R. Prajapati for the defendant No.2.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Dwivedi appearing for the appellant has submitted that the learned Commissioner has committed a grave error in dismissing the claim petition on the ground that the appellant has not suffered any loss of future income or earning capacity. It is contended that the case of the claimant squarely falls within the ambit of "total disablement" as defined under Section 2(l) of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923. It is further submitted that the claimant had duly established permanent partial disablement by producing the disability certificate issued by a competent medical practitioner and had satisfied the requirements of Section 4(1)(c)(ii) of the Act. Despite the same, the Page 5 of 14 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Wed Feb 18 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:35:03 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/605/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined learned Commissioner has erroneously dismissed the claim petition. Learned advocate Mr. Dwivedi has placed reliance upon the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal No. 1664 of 1998 and has submitted that in an identically situated case, the Division Bench confirmed the award passed by the learned Commissioner granting compensation. On the strength of the said decision, it is contended that the impugned judgment and order deserve to be quashed and set aside and the present appeal deserves to be allowed. Learned advocate Mr. Dwivedi has also formulated substantial questions of law, which is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"(a) Whether Ld. WC Commissioner has justified by dismissing the claim petition?
(b) Whether Ld. WC Commissioner has justified by holding that appellant is not entitled for compensation because appellant has not suffered any loss of future income and his earning capacity is not reduced?
c) Whether Ld. W.C. Commissioner has justified by holding that the injury and disability sustained by the applicant falls ek under section 2 (g) of E C Act, 1923?
(d) Whether Ld. W.C. Commissioner has justified by not considering the fact that the injury and disability sustained by the applicant falls under section 2 (1) of E C Act, 1923?Page 6 of 14 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Wed Feb 18 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:35:03 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/605/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined
(e) Whether Ld. W.C. Commissioner has justified by not considering the fact that as per section 4 (1)(c) (i) and (ii) compensation required to be calculated and awarded considering the loss of earning capacity? And same principle has also been laid down by the Hon'ble Division Bench of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of State of Gujarat Vs. Rajendra Khodabhai Deshdia and Anr., Reported in 1991 ACJ 638."
4.1. In view of the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate Mr. Dwivedi has prayed that the impugned judgment and order be set aside and the present First Appeal be allowed.
5. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. M. R. Prajapati appearing for learned advocate Mr. V. C. Thomas for respondent No.2 has submitted that the claimant has failed to establish any loss of earning capacity as contemplated under the Act and, therefore, the learned Commissioner has not committed any error in dismissing the claim petition. It is submitted that no case for interference under Section 30 of the Act is made out and the appeal, being devoid of merits, deserves to be dismissed.
6. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and having perused the record and proceedings, the moot question that arises for consideration is Page 7 of 14 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Wed Feb 18 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:35:03 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/605/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined whether the learned Commissioner committed an error in dismissing the claim petition on the ground that the appellant failed to establish loss of earning capacity. 6.1. The claim petition filed before the learned Commissioner and the examination-in-chief produced at Exh. 20 reveal that the appellant was serving as a Police Sub-Inspector (PSI) at Dabhoi in the Superintendent- cum-Western Railway Police Department. On 10.05.2011, while returning from the Court at Jetpurpavi after deposing in a railway accident case, he met with an accident near Lotia Chowkdi on the Bodeli-Vadodara Highway while riding his motorcycle bearing registration No. GJ-06-G-1613. The accident involved a truck, resulting in grievous injuries to the appellant, who became semi-conscious at the scene. An FIR came to be registered at Sankheda Police Station vide First C.R. No. 20/2011. The appellant was initially treated at Pramukh Swami Hospital and subsequently referred to Global Hospital, Manjalpur, Vadodara, where he underwent treatment from 10.05.2011 to 26.05.2011 and thereafter from 26.06.2011 to 30.06.2011. He sustained a comminuted fracture of the tibia and fibula of the right Page 8 of 14 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Wed Feb 18 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:35:03 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/605/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined leg. Due to the gap between the fractured bones, rings and screws were inserted. The appellant incurred medical expenses amounting to approximately Rs. 3,00,000/-.
6.2. During cross-examination, the appellant deposed that he joined service as a Police Constable in 1988, was promoted to Head Constable in 1992, to PSI in 2007 after clearing the requisite examination, and from written argument of the opponent, it emerges that he was subsequently promoted to Deputy Superintendent of Police (DySP). He admitted during the cross-examination that, in addition to salary, he was receiving house rent allowance, medical allowance, washing allowance, city compensatory allowance, and other benefits. He further admitted that after the accident, his salary was not reduced and he continued to receive all annual increments. He also admitted that he was able to perform his routine duties and that there was no reduction in rank or degradation in service due to the accident. He categorically admitted that there was no loss of earning capacity. The appellant has further admitted that he had submitted his medical expenses for Page 9 of 14 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Wed Feb 18 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:35:03 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/605/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined the purpose of reimbursement No note regarding permanent disability was entered in his service book, nor was he declared unfit by the department. He received promotions as per his seniority, and no charge- sheet or warning was issued on account of the injury. He admitted that he continues to perform his duties satisfactorily. Along with his examination-in-chief, the appellant produced a disability certificate at Exh. 31 certifying 30% permanent disability, noting injury to the right lower limb and shortening of the right leg by 1 centimeter.
6.3. To establish loss of earning capacity, the claimant examined Dr. Tushar Modi at Exh. 30, who deposed that the claimant suffered approximately 30% permanent disability. In cross-examination, Dr. Modi admitted that there was no amputation. He further admitted that the treatment was administered by Dr. Nirav Modi and Dr. Rajiv Shah, both Orthopaedic Surgeons. The witness acknowledged that the certificates advising three months' rest and thereafter permitting the claimant to resume routine duties were not within his knowledge, nor were they produced before the Court. He admitted Page 10 of 14 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Wed Feb 18 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:35:03 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/605/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined that no certificate indicated that the claimant was unable to perform his work due to the injury. The X-ray reports forming the basis of the disability certificate were not produced before the Court. The witness further admitted that he had not treated the claimant nor performed any surgery and had issued the disability certificate based on earlier certificates issued by other doctors. For the purpose of obtaining the disability certificate, the patient personally approached the witness. The witness admitted that while issuing the said certificate, he had not referred to the fitness certificate previously issued. The certificate at Exh. 50, issued by Global Hospital, recommends rest for a period of three months. The witness denied the suggestion that, at the time of obtaining the certificate, the patient had failed to disclose that he was serving in the Police Department. He further admitted that had the certificate been issued by the treating doctor, the same could have been subject to proper verification. He also admitted that the claimant is capable of performing supervisory work while seated. From the above evidence, it clearly emerges that there is no permanent disability resulting Page 11 of 14 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Wed Feb 18 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:35:03 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/605/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined in inability to perform routine duties. The medical witness neither treated the claimant nor performed surgery and issued the certificate based on documents not forming part of the record.
6.4. Upon consideration of the overall evidence adduced by the parties and bearing in mind the object and purpose of the Act, to ensure that a workman or his family members are not left without remedy in the event of a sudden mishap, it is necessary to examine the nature of the injury and the corresponding entitlement to compensation under the statutory framework. Under the provisions of the Act, where the injury sustained by a workman is a scheduled injury, the minimum compensation payable is determined in accordance with the percentage of loss of earning capacity as prescribed in the Schedule. Conversely, in cases involving a non- scheduled injury, the burden lies upon the workman to establish, by cogent and reliable evidence, the extent of loss of earning capacity suffered as a consequence of the accident. In the present case, it is undisputed that the injury in question is a non-scheduled injury. However, the material placed on record does not demonstrate that Page 12 of 14 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Wed Feb 18 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:35:03 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/605/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined the workman has suffered any actual loss of earning capacity due to the said injury. On the contrary, the evidence indicates that he has been granted promotions from time to time and has received higher pay scales. As submitted in the written arguments, he presently holds the position of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DYSP) in accordance with his seniority. In this factual background, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no credible evidence on record to establish any loss of earning capacity. Furthermore, the medical certificate relied upon by the workman does not inspire confidence, as the certifying doctor neither treated the workman nor examined his prior fitness records before issuing the certificate.
6.5. Learned advocate Mr. Dwivedi relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench in First Appeal No. 1664 of 1988. A perusal of the said judgment reveals that in that case the doctor had certified 40% disability due to loss of function below the wrist. The Division Bench held that in cases of non-scheduled injuries, the workman must adduce cogent evidence to establish the extent of loss of earning capacity resulting from the accident. In Page 13 of 14 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Wed Feb 18 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:35:03 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/605/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2026 undefined the present case, the injury is admittedly a non- scheduled injury. However, in absence of cogent and reliable evidence establishing loss of earning capacity, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Commissioner has not committed any error in dismissing the claim petition.
7. Resultantly, the present appeal, being devoid of merits, stands dismissed.
8. Rule is discharged.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) NIVYA A. NAIR Page 14 of 14 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Wed Feb 18 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 13 21:35:03 IST 2026