Mahender vs Tuli Ram & Ors.
2010 Latest Caselaw 3080 Del

     *          IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                                                      Date of Reserve: May 25, 2010
                                                         Date of Order: July 02, 2010
+ MAC Appeal 342/2010 & CM No.10073/2010
%                                                                          02.07.2010
     Mahender                                                       ...Appellant
     Through: K.K. Dubey, Advocate

         Versus

         Tuli Ram & Ors.                                            ...Respondents
         Through: nemo



         JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1.       Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?

3.       Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?


         JUDGMENT

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant accompanied with an

application under Section 5 of Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 103 days in

filing the present appeal. The grounds as stated in the application are that the appellant

was very depressed due to loss of his livelihood after the accident and he was financially

shattered and, therefore, could not file the appeal in time before the Court. The present

appeal was filed after 103 days of delay.

2. The grounds narrated by the appellant in the application are quite vague and

evasive. The accident of the appellant took place on 14th September 2005. The

appellant had injured his right leg in the accident. The appellant filed a claim petition

before the Tribunal in time. If he could file the claim petition soon after the accident

despite sustaining injuries, it is not understood as to how he became depressed after

passing of award when the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.4,75,000/- in his favour. The

MAC Appeal No.342/2010 Mahender v.Tuli Ram & Ors. Page 1 Of 2 reason given for not filing the appeal within time is obviously baseless. I find no force in

the application for condonation of delay. The application is hereby dismissed.

3. Even otherwise , I have gone through the award passed by learned Tribunal. The

appellant suffered 81% permanent locomotor impairment of one leg. The Tribunal after

taking into account the provisions of Workmen Compensation Act considered the

disability of appellant as 50%. Since the appellant had failed to place on record proof

regarding his employment, the Tribunal, taking into consideration the minimum wages as

applicable on the date of accident at Rs.3166/- per month applied a multiplier of 18, did

not deduct any amount towards misc expenses etc and awarded a compensation for loss

of earning to the tune of Rs.3,41,928/- which under no circumstances can be said to be

inadequate. If the Tribunal has followed the judgment of Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar

Vs. Ram Singh Gaud, VI(2007) ACC 716 SC, the Tribunal should have deducted 1/3rd

towards misc expenses out of the income of the appellant and then taken loss of

income. The learned Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards pain and

suffering, a sum of Rs.1 lac towards his prospects of marriage and awarded medical

expenses on the basis of evidence produced before it. I find that the award passed by

learned Tribunal was just and fair and need no interference. The appeal is hereby

dismissed being without merits and barred by time.

July 02, 2010                                              SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J.
rd




MAC Appeal No.342/2010   Mahender v.Tuli Ram & Ors.                        Page 2 Of 2