Delhi High Court
Om Prakash vs Arun Kumar And Others on 4 August, 2011
Author: Indermeet Kaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 04.08.2011
+ MAC APPEAL No. 84/2010
OM PRAKASH ...........Appellant
Through: Mr.S.K. Anand, Advocate
Versus
ARUN KUMAR AND OTHERS ..........Respondents
Through: Mr.K.L. Nandwani, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Yes
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)
1 Award has been impugned by the claimants on two grounds.
His contention is that salary fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.17,171/-
has been miscalculated; attention has been drawn to Ex.PW-1/1
which is his salary slip for the months of September, October,
November & December, 2002. The chart shows that for the month
of September, the appellant was getting a salary of Rs.17,171/-; in
the month of October, it was inflated to Rs.30,824/-. This salary
slip records that it is Diwali and greetings had also been accorded
on that count; because of certain special incentives which the
appellant had earned in this month, his salary figure had stood
inflated. For the month of November, the appellant was getting a
salary of Rs.17,910/- and for the month of December, his salary
was fixed at Rs.18,300/-. Even if there is a nominal difference in
the figures for the months of September and December, the award
does not call for any interference as no substantial difference is
going to be meted out on this count. No interference is thus called
on this count.
2 The second grievance of learned counsel for the appellant is
that his permanent disability had been fixed by his medical
certificate at 54% yet the functional disability has been awarded
by the Tribunal only at 25%; contention being that he was doing
the job of fitter in the Maruti Company and since his right hand
had got permanent disabled, he had to even resign from the job.
This contention of the appellant was noted by the Tribunal while
arriving at his functional disability of 25%. The Tribunal had also
noted that the appellant had given his resignation to the company.
3 This Court notes that the Tribunal had awarded a sum of
Rs.25,000/- under the head of 'loss of amenities'; Rs.25,000/-
under the head of 'pain and suffering'; Rs.15,000/- as conveyance
and special diet and attendant charges. The emotional and
physical loss suffered by the victim had been well considered by
the Tribunal in awarding a total sum of Rs.9,45,000/- along with
interest @ 7.5%. Award calls for no interference.
4 Dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
AUGUST 04, 2011
a
