JUDGMENT
K.S. Lodha, J.
1. This matter comes up for the disposal of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
3. The appeal has been filed beyond the period of limitation by 42 days and this fact is not in dispute. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has, therefore, been filed and it is supported by an affidavit of Mr. D.C. Bhandari, Divisional Manager of the New India Assurance Company. The delay has been sought to be explained on the ground that although the copy had been applied for immediately after the award, the copy was dispatched by the local counsel late and it reached the Jodhpur office on 8-5-1985. The matter was handed over to the learned Counsel for the appellant for filing the appeal and as the period of limitation had already expired he made enquiries on which the fact of the late dispatch of the copy was disclosed and ultimately the appeal was filed on 25-5-1985. The facts stated in the application supported by the affidavit have not been controverted by the respondents by filing any counter affidavit. It does appear that there has been some negligence on the part of the local lawyer in sending the certified copy to the branch office of the appellant company but in the circumstances of the case I am of the opinion that negligence should not affect the rights of the appellant in filing this appeal because it does appear that the appellant company had been taking steps for the filing of the appeal and when the facts stated in the affidavit of Mr. D.C Bhandari are not controverted there is no reason to disbelieve the affidavit. In these circumstances the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant for the admission of the appeal on merits.
5. Two contentions have been raised before me by the learned Counsel for the appellant. The first contention is that the learned Tribunal was wrong in holding that the accident was the result of the rash and negligent driving of the truck driver Girdharisingh, specially when the applicant himself who was travelling in the jeep had become unconscious at the spot and his evidence as an eye-witness could not have been relied upon. His second contention is that in any case the award of Rs. 27,000/- by way of loss of income is unwarranted because it is not the case of the claimant that on account of this accident his pay had been reduced or he had in any other manner suffered in his emoluments.
6. I have given my careful consideration to these contentions and have also perused the statements of the witnesses from the file of the learned Counsel for the appellant. The claimant Ratan Raj Solanki himself deposed as an eye-witness and his statement is supported by the driver of the jeep in which he was travelling. Both of them are, therefore, very important eyewitnesses, the claimant being the injured himself and the driver of the jeep who had clear opportunity of seeing the incident. The learned Tribunal was,
7. So far as the second contention goes, it is true that the claimant has not stated that on account of his impaired efficiency on account of the accident his salary has been reduced or that he has been put to a financial loss on that account immediately but all the same it is clear that his future prospects have been marred. The claimant was a Government servant working as ‘gram sevak’ and drawing a salary of Rs. 960/- p m The Tribunal has found that on account of the accident his knee-cap had to be removed and on account of removal of the knee-cap his efficiency has been impaired. When efficiency has thus been impaired and the removal of the knee-cap has resulted into a permanent disablement to the effect that the claimant cannot fully stretch his leg and also cannot fold it, it can easily be concluded that his future prospects is the service have definitely been marred. The Tribunal has further observed that on account of this accident the claimant had received a great shock and looking to all these circumstances he has awarded a sum of Rs. 27,000/- as compensation. Though he has awarded the sum under the head of loss of income and has calculated it at the rate of Rs. 150/- p.m. multiplied by 15, but from what has been stated above, it is clear that this award is not merely for the loss of income but also for the loss of future promotions as also on account of the shock and in these circumstances I am not satisfied that the award is improper.
8. The appeal must, therefore, fail and is hereby dismissed.