Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 740 (GUJ)

Divisional Controller (Gsrtc) v. Kailashba

2017-04-04

A.G.URAIZEE

body2017
JUDGMENT : A.G. Uraizee, J. This Appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923, is directed against the judgment and order dated 10.4.2013 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation Case No.4 of 2012. 2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Hardik C. Raval for the appellant and learned advocate Mr. R.K. Mansuri for the respondent Nos.1 to 7 - original claimants. 3. Learned advocate Mr. Raval for the appellant relying upon the decision in the case of Cholan Roadways Ltd. v. G. Thirugnanasambandam, reported in AIR 2005 SC 50, submits that the Commissioner ought to have invoked the principle of Res ipsa Loquitur and ought to have recorded finding that the accident had happened due to negligence on the part of the deceased driver. Therefore, the appellant could not have held liable to pay the compensation. Therefore, he urges that the appeal may be allowed and the judgment and order passed by the Commissioner may be quashed and set aside. 4. Learned advocate Mr. R.K. Mansuri for the respondent Nos.1 to 7 - original claimants, has supported the impugned judgment and order and has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Golla Rajanna and Others v. Divisional Manager, and Another reported in (2017) 1 SCC 45 . He has submitted that the Appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act, is maintainable on substantial questions of law. If the findings recorded by the Commissioner, are not found to be perverse, this Court cannot interfere with order of the Commissioner. He, therefore, urges to dismiss the Appeal. 5. It is undisputed fact that the deceased Sajjansinh Magansinh Jadeja was working as a driver of the appellant Corporation. On 17.7.2010, he was on duty of S.T. Bus bearing Registration No. GJ-18V-9334 and was coming to Pethapur from Mahudi by driving S.T. bus. The deceased lost control over the bus near Pethapur cross road as the branch of a tree came into contact with the bus, which collided with electric pole. The deceased suffered fatal injury and died. The claimants being legal heirs of the deceased preferred Fatal Workmen Compensation Case No.4 of 2012 to recover compensation from the appellant. 6. The appellant resisted the case by filing reply Exhibit 8 and filed documentary evidence vide list Exhibit 9. The deceased suffered fatal injury and died. The claimants being legal heirs of the deceased preferred Fatal Workmen Compensation Case No.4 of 2012 to recover compensation from the appellant. 6. The appellant resisted the case by filing reply Exhibit 8 and filed documentary evidence vide list Exhibit 9. It seems that it was the contention of the appellant in their reply that the accident had happened on account of negligence on the part of the deceased driver. The appellant did not led any ocular or documentary evidence make good their defence. The Commissioner, therefore, recorded findings that the appellant has failed to prove that the accident had happened because of negligence on the part of the deceased. According to my opinion, these findings of the fact are backed by cogent reasons, which cannot be said to be perverse. 7. As has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Golla Rajanna and Others (supra), the Appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act is maintainable on substantial questions of law. No substantial question of law is involved in the Appeal. Therefore, impugned judgment and order of the Commissioner, does not warrant interference. 8. For the reasons above, Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. 9. Parties to bear their own costs. Record and Proceedings to be remitted to the Tribunal forthwith. 10. The amount lying with the Commissioner in FDR is ordered to be released in favour of the claimants along with accrued interest, if any.