Shyam Sunder vs Krishna Kumar & Anr.
2010 Latest Caselaw 3082 Del

     *          IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                                                               Date of Reserve: May 20, 2010
                                                                  Date of Order: July 02, 2010
+ MAC Appeal 19/2010
%                                                                                   02.07.2010
     Shyam Sunder                                                            ...Appellant
     Through: Mr. O.P. Mannie, Advocate

         Versus

         Krishna Kumar & Anr.                                                ...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 filed by the appellant against an award dated 23rd

October 2009 passed by learned Tribunal whereby the learned Tribunal awarded a sum

of Rs.2,64,000/- to the appellant with interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing of claim

petition till realization. The appellant has assailed the award on the ground that the

compensation awarded by the Tribunal was inadequate.

2. The appellant met with an accident on 20th December 2005, when a dumper truck

bearing number HR 38 K 7085 hit the appellant when appellant was standing at the bus

stand waiting for the bus. The appellant, on account of this accident, suffered fracture of

femur bone and also of nasal bone. He remained hospitalized with effect from 20th

December 2005 till 12th January 2006 and thereafter from 3rd June, 2006 to 6th June

2006. The appellant at the time of accident was employed as a doctor with Central Jail

Hospital, Rohini as Junior Resident and his contract of service was to expire in January

MAC Appeal 19/2010 Shyam Sunder v. Krishna Kumar & Anr. Page 1 Of 3 2006. He was drawing a salary of Rs.22,391/- per month. After recovery from injuries,

the appellant joined service with UP Government at the post of Medical Officer at basic

salary of Rs.16,880/- and gross salary, more than what he was getting at Rohini

Hospital, Delhi. The appellant was treated at Government Hospital. He produced medical

bills of Rs.1500/-. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.7,000/- to the appellant towards

medical expenses and special diet, conveyance etc. Since the appellant got reemployed

with effect from August 2006, learned Tribunal awarded loss of income for 8 months i.e.

from December 2005 to July 2006. Although the appellant did get salary from his

employer i.e. Jail Hospital, Rohini for December 2005, a sum of Rs.1,71,128/- was

awarded to the appellant equivalent to 8 months salary after deduction of income tax.

Since the appellant had suffered 48% disability of his lower limbs, the Tribunal awarded

Rs.25,000/- towards pain and sufferings and Rs.60,000/- for loss of amenities and

enjoyment of life. Thus, the total compensation awarded to the appellant was

Rs.2,64,000/-.

3. The award is assailed by the appellant on the ground that the Tribunal wrongly

concluded that the disability of the appellant had not affected the earning capacity of the

appellant. It is stated that if the appellant had not met with the accident, he would have

earned Rs.43,804/- per month since the appellant was having an offer of job of resident

doctor in Delhi and as a doctor in Delhi he would have got salary of Rs.43,804/- per

month. The other contention of the appellant is that because of permanent disability of

his both a lower limbs appellant was not able to walk properly and the Tribunal granted

inadequate sum towards his pain and sufferings and loss of comforts of life. Appellant

had also to engage an attendant for the period when he remained confined to bed for

which no amount was allowed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal also failed to take into

consideration that the appellant, on account of accident, could not appear and take

competitive examination for admission to MD which affected his career.

MAC Appeal 19/2010 Shyam Sunder v. Krishna Kumar & Anr. Page 2 Of 3

4. A perusal of award would show that the Tribunal had considered these aspects.

The appellant had raised the plea of non appearing in competitive examination for

admission to MD due to accident. The Tribunal and the Tribunal found that the appellant

had appeared for entrance examination of MD previously several times but failed to clear

the same. So, it cannot be said that if he had appeared this time he would have cleared

the same. Thus, there was no loss of opportunity or loss of academic career. The

Tribunal also observed that the basic salary of the appellant at Jail Hospital, Rohini was

Rs.9400/- per month at the time of accident. After 8 months of accident, he got a

government job in UP with basic salary of Rs.16,880/- per month. The Tribunal rightly

held that appellant had not suffered loss of earning capacity due to accidental injuries.

The Tribunal also observed that since the appellant belonged to noble profession of

medical service, his physical injury would not affect his capacity or capabilities to perform

his duties in the medical field, which was evident from the fact that he got a better job

soon after the accident with UP Government.

5. I consider that the Tribunal awarded adequate, just and fair compensation to the

appellant. The award passed by the Tribunal does not require interference by this Court.

I find no force in this appeal. The appeal is hereby dismissed.

June 02, 2010                                                SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J.
rd




MAC Appeal 19/2010    Shyam Sunder v. Krishna Kumar & Anr.                  Page 3 Of 3