IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 5069 of 2023 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI ==========================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No ✔

==========================================================

LH OF DECD. MANOJPRASHAD KASHINATH SHAHU CHANAMUNIDEVI KASHINATH SHAHU & ORS.

Versus RAJESHKUMAR DHARAMSHIBHAI MADHAVI & ANR.

==========================================================

Appearance:

MR Y J PATEL(3985) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,1.1,1.2,1.3 MR KV GADHIA(319) for the Defendant(s) No. 2 NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Defendant(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI Date : 09/03/2026

JUDGMENT

1 This Appeal is filed under Section 30 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 (For short “the Act”), challenging the judgment and award dated 14.06.2023 passed by the learned Commissioner under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, Labour Court (J.D.), Gandhidham, Kachchh in W.C. (F) Application No.32 of 2016, whereby the application filed under Section 4, and 4(A) of the Act by the legal heirs/representatives of the deceased–Manojprashad Kashinath Shahu, came to be rejected.

2. Heard learned advocate Mr.Y.J.Patel for the appellants – original claimants and learned advocate Mr.K.V.Gadhia for opponent No.2 - Insurance Company. Though served, none appears for opponent No.1-original employer.

3. The factual matrix borne out from the record is that Manojprashad Kashinath Shahu (deceased) was working as a heavy driver of tanker bearing registration No.GJ-12-Z-9530 in the employment of Opponent No.1- Rajeshkumar Dharamshibhai Madhavi. On 17.02.2016, as per instructions of opponent No.1, the deceased went to unload the luggage loaded in the tanker. However, when he reached near Vishala Hotel on the outskirts of village Maliya, he suffered a sudden cardiac arrest and expired during the course of his employ-

ment.

3.1 In wake of the aforesaid facts, the legal heirs/representatives of the deceased claimed that the deceased was working as a heavy driver with opponent No.1 at a monthly salary of Rs.8,000/- along with a monthly allowance of Rs.6,000/-, totaling Rs.14,000/- per month, which was paid by opponent No.1 to the deceased. It is claimed that the deceased was the sole breadwinner of the family and was aged about 32 years at the time of accident. Defendant No.2 is the insurer of defendant No.1. It is further claimed that since the deceased died during the course of employment, defendant Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.8,20,400/- along with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of accident till realization.

3.2 The learned Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation Act, Labour Court, by judgment and award dated 14.06.2023, was pleased to dismiss the application on the ground that the claimants failed to establish that the death was caused due to heart failure arising out of stress and strain of the work. Being aggrieved, the claimants have filed the present First Appeal, inter alia, on the grounds mentioned of in the memo of appeal, raising the following questions as substantial questions of law:-

(1) Whether the learned Lower Court was justified to hold that deceased had not died due to stress or strain because of his work?

(2) Whether the learned Lower Court was justified to hold that deceased had died due to heart attack is not covered under the “Accident”?

(3) Whether the learned Lower Court has committed grave error not appreciated that under section-3 of the workman compensation act, 1923 death of a deceased due to heart attack sudden manifestation of heart condition from the effect of strain or over work constitutes an accidental injury?

(4) Whether the learned Lower Court has committed grave error not appreciated that deceased was driving the tanker, said work is directly culminated in his health, same could be said that the failure of heart of deceased?

(5) Wh