LAWS(DLH)-2011-12-317

V.K.SHARMA Vs. MITTHU

Decided On December 13, 2011
V.K.SHARMA Appellant
V/S
MITTHU Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant seeks enhancement of compensation in respect of the injuries suffered by him in an accident which took place on 19.8.1981 while the Appellant was travelling in a tempo No. MS-4809 owned by his employer i.e. Delhi State Industrial Development Corporation (DSIDC). The Tribunal awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs. 35,000 after referring a number of cases where a compensation ranging between Rs. 15,000 and Rs. 30,000 was awarded.

(2.) It is contended by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that some compensation may be awarded to the Appellant towards non-pecuniary damages. It is submitted that a disability certificate issued by Hindu Rao Hospital which was not properly proved showing permanent disability to the extent of 60% was not taken into consideration by the Tribunal while awarding the compensation. The Appellant was medically examined by the Board of Doctors in the year 1995 by RML Hospital who issued a Certificate Ex. PW1/1 which showed that the Appellant suffered for 40% permanent disability. It was mentioned in the disability certificate that this disability is for grant of conveyance allowance as permissible under the modified Rule from the Ministry of Finance No. 19020/1/78-EIV(8) dated 3.12.1979.

(3.) At the time of accident which took place on 19.8.1981, the Appellant was getting a basic pay of Rs. 272 per month in the Pay Scale of Rs. 260-400. It was established on record that the Appellant took leave for about 11 months. The gross salary of the Appellant at the time of accident at the basic of Rs. 266 can be assumed about Rs. 400 per month. Admittedly, the Appellant continued in the same job after the accident. Rather, he was granted conveyance allowance in terms of the Circular issued by the Government of India for the purpose of which the disability certificate was also obtained by the Appellant's employer. Since the Appellant did not suffer any disability affecting his earning capacity, he is not entitled to any compensation under this head. I would award him the compensation under different heads as under: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_5708_ILRDLH21_2011_1.html</FRM>