1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
--------------------------------------------------------
CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No. 409 of 1997
RAJ KUMAR
V/S
R S R T C & ORS
Mr. BHARAT SRIMALI & Mr. SHAMBHOO RATHORE, for the
appellant / petitioner
Mr. ANIL BACHHAWAT & Mr. MP GOSWAMI, for the respondent
Date of Order : 26.9.2008
HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J.
ORDER
—–
The claimant has filed this appeal for
enhancement of the compensation. Since the question of
negligence etc. are not in controversy, I need not go into
those aspects. The aspect of compensation has been decided
by the learned Tribunal while deciding the issue no. 3.
The relevant facts in that regard are, that
according to the claimant he was 28 years of age at the
time of accident, and was earning Rs. 3,000/- per month,
and his right hand has become useless, due to injury,
sustained in the accident, which is under treatment even
till the date, and is not likely to be normal. To this
effect the claimant has also deposed, and his younger
brother Ramotar has also deposed that nuts and bolts have
been fixed in the hand, and the hand has become totally
useless.
The learned Tribunal found, that the claimant
has claimed to be serving in private employment, and is
2
continuing to receive treatment. The learned Tribunal has
awarded Rs. 15,000/- for the pain and agony. Then, since
the claimant has produced the medical bills for Rs.
11,744/-, considering that the treatment is likely to
continue, a sum of Rs. 15,000/- has been awarded on that
count, and another sum of Rs. 10,000/- has been awarded
for the future loss of income.
Learned counsel for the appellant, assailing the
award contended, that the appellant has suffered 70%
permanent disablement, and therefore, the compensation
awarded is grossly inadequate.
I have considered the submissions, and perused
the record, and find, that from the statement of claimant
himself, which were recorded on 4.7.1996, it is clear,
that some of the nails and plates have been removed, and
one more operation was to be undertaken. While there is
nothing to show as to what has been the consequence after
second operation, i.e. whether any disability survives? It
is a different story that from the documents available on
record, it appears, that immediately after the accident he
was operated on 13.8.1995, as appears from Ex. 8. Then,
Ex.-50 is another document, being receipt for the charges
for administration of anesthesia. Obviously, therefore, at
that time some operation must have been undertaken.
Documents in which regard has not been produced, and what
has been the consequent survival of disability has also
not been brought on record.
Learned counsel for the appellant wanted me to
3
go through the certificate dated 1.10.1996, which has been
produced on record on 11.2.1997. From perusal of order-
sheets it transpires, that on 11.2.1997 final arguments in
the claim were heard, and the claim was decided on the
next date fixed, being 25.2.1997. Thus, this certificate
has neither been tendered in evidence, nor had been
proved, nor the certificate is original one. That apart
this certificate catalogues the list of disabilities, i.e.
the nature of injuries suffered, and the extent of
disability sustained, and in this head entries appearing
at No. “h, i, & j” are shown to be resulting into 70%
disability, but admittedly in the certificate none of
these injuries have been mentioned to have been sustained
by the victim, still the Doctor has purportedly certified
the appellant to have sustained 70% handicap. Looking to
the nature of injuries, even if the matter were to be
considered on the parameters of the list given in
Schedule-I, appended to the Workmen’s Compensation Act,
still the disability is not shown to be any permanent
disablement.
In that view of the matter, I do not find any
ground to accept the contention that has been raised by
the learned counsel for the appellant.
That being the position, the compensation as
awarded by the learned Tribunal cannot be said to be
inadequate, requiring any interference by this Court in
appeal.
4
The appeal thus has no force, and the same is,
therefore, dismissed.
( N P GUPTA ),J.
/Sushil/