Delhi High Court
Hussain vs Surender Kumar & Ors. on 2 July, 2010
Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Reserve: May 25, 2010
Date of Order: July, 02 2010
+ MAC Appeal 336/2010 & CM No.9868/2010
% 02.07.2010
Hussain ...Appellant
Through: K.K. Dubey, Advocate
Versus
Surender Kumar & Ors. ...Respondents
Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate for R-3
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?
ORDER
1. This order shall disposed of an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act
seeking condonation of delay of 120 days in filing the 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 appeal
against award within prescribed time. The present appeal was filed after 120 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 4th March, 2006. The appellant had
injured his right hand and in the accident and 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 how he became depressed after passing of award when the Tribunal
MAC Appeal No.336/2010 Hussain v. Surender Kumar & Ors. Page 1 Of 2
awarded a sum of Rs.2,73,000/- in his favour. The 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 38% locomotor impairment in respect to his right upper limb. The
Tribunal considered the incapacity to earn as 50% and awarded compensation without
deducting any amount towards misc expenses. Since the appellant failed to place on
record proof regarding his employment, the Tribunal took into consideration the minimum
wages as applicable on the date of accident at Rs.1090/- per month and applied a
multiplier of 15, did not deduct any amount towards misc expenses etc and awarded a
compensation for loss of earning capacity to the tune of Rs.2,73,200/- 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 of income towards misc expenses out of the
income of the appellant and then calculated loss of income. The learned Tribunal also
awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering, a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards
future prospects and Rs.7,000/- towards actual medical expenses and Rs.5,000/-
towards conveyance and special diet 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.
4. The appeal is hereby dismissed having no force and being time-barred.
July 02, 2010 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J.
rd
MAC Appeal No.336/2010 Hussain v. Surender Kumar & Ors. Page 2 Of 2
