GOVIND KANA Vs. KANA TIDA MOKARIA
LAWS(GJH)-1988-7-1
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on July 13,1988

GOVIND KANA Appellant
VERSUS
KANA TIDA MOKARIA Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD VS. BUDHABHAI ALIAS RAMANBHAI SHANABHAI [LAWS(GJH)-2009-10-42] [REFERRED TO]
BARUN KUMAR DAS VS. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD [LAWS(CAL)-2004-8-56] [REFERRED TO]
MD SALAUDDIN VS. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD [LAWS(CAL)-2004-12-3] [REFERRED TO]
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD VS. AMITAVA DAS [LAWS(CAL)-2006-11-30] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

A.P.RAVANI - (1.)Admit. Mr. A. H. Mehta waives service of notice on behalf of respondent No. 2. By consent of the parties the matter is ordered to be heard today.
(2.)The appellant is a workman who has lost before the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation and hence preferred this appeal. It was his case that on 26/05/1984 while he was in employment of respondent No. 1 he was driving the truck belonging to respondent No. 1 and he met with an accident and received serious injuries; that he was receiving monthly wages of Rs. 1000.00 per month; that after the accidental injury he took treatment and even after the treatment he is suffering from permanent partial disability and therefore he is entitled to claim compensation from the respondents. Respondent No. 2 is the Insurance Company with which the truck in question was insured by respondent No. 1. The appellant-petitioner claimed Rs. 60 0 as and by way of compensation and also claimed penalty to the extent of 50 per cent of the amount of compensation and prayed that the aforesaid amount be directed to be paid to him with 12% interest per annum. The petitioner prayed for other expenses of Rs. 10 0 also.
(3.)Opponent No. 1 though served with the notice has not remained present and the application proceeded eX-par(e against him. The Insurance Company appeared and raised several contentions before the Commissioner. The learned Commissioner after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the appellant was employed by opponent No. 1 and therefore he was a workman within the meaning of the Act; that the truck was duly insured with opponent No. 2-Insurance Company a..d that both the opponents were jointly and severally liable for the amount of compensation as claimed by the appellant; that the wages of the workman was Rs. 1 0 per month; and the workman has received serious injuries on account of the accident which took place on 26/05/1984 when the workman was driving the truck in question. Still however the learned Commissioner held that the workman had been not examined by the medical officer concerned and therefore it cannot be said that he had proved the contents of the medical certificate and therefore the applicant has failed to prove the disability and hence he is not entitled to claim any amount as and by way of compensation from the opponents Hence the appellant-workman has preferred this Appeal. In this appeal also the employer-respondent No. 1 though served has remained absent. Only the Insurance Company has appeared.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.