Delhi High Court
P.K.Shukla vs M/S. D.C.M.Ltd. & Anr. on 7 February, 2011
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA No.201/2001
% 7th February, 2011
P.K.SHUKLA ...... Appellant
Through: None
VERSUS
M/S. D.C.M.LTD. & ANR. ...... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This case is on the Regular Board of this Court since 3.1.2011. No
one appears for the parties although it is 1 O'clock. This case is effective
item no.8 on the Regular Board of this court today. I have therefore perused
the record and am proceeding to dispose of the matter.
2. The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal is to the
impugned judgment and decree dated 10.1.2000 whereby this suit of the
appellant/plaintiff for recovery of compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- was
dismissed, and which compensation was claimed by the appellant on
RFA No.201/2001 Page 1 of 3
account of having allegedly suffered ailments on account of oleum gas leak
from the factory of the respondents/defendants.
3. The respondents contested the suit and pleaded that the claim
was bogus. It was pleaded that the plaintiff did not suffer any harm or injury
and consequently no damages can be awarded.
4. The Trial Court after completion of pleadings framed issues
which read as under:-
"i) Whether the plaintiff has suffered any injury or loss on
account of alleged Oleum gas leakage from the
premises of the defendant on 4.12.85. If so, to what
effect? OPP.
ii) What loss/damage plaintiff has suffered? OPP.
iii) Whether the defendant is liable to pay damages. If so,
how much? OPP.
iv) Relief."
5. The Trial Court has given its discussions and conclusions in a part
of Para 5 of the judgment. I completely agree with the findings and which
clearly show that the claim of the appellant/plaintiff was bogus. The Trial
Curt has noted the fact that the certificate of the Doctor was not of the same
date as of the gas leak. The Trial Court has also noted that if the appellant
was really sick on account of leakage of oleum gas, there was no reason for
him to leave many hospitals in between the place where he fell sick and
where the Doctor was. The Trial Court has also rightly noted that the
appellant failed to prove that he spent Rs.20,000/- on his treatment. The
Trial Court also notes that the case that the appellant suffered illness is
RFA No.201/2001 Page 2 of 3
negatived by the fact that he visited no major hospital for treatment of the
alleged ailment. The Trial Court has rightly recorded that the concerned
Doctor (Mrs.) Sulekha Gupta rightly observed that appellant was only a mild
case and therefore she did not advise the appellant to go to any specialist or
keep the appellant under any observation. The Trial Court has also arrived
at a finding that the appellant was not on leave from 4th December, 1985 to
6th December, 1985 when the alleged gas leak took place and thus appellant
clearly did not suffer any injury because he was very much on duty at 3.00
pm. Finally, the Trial Court has recorded that the claim of the appellant is
totally false that he could not attend the Railway Recruitment Board Exam
which was slated on 19.1.1986 because the letter from the Railway
Recruitment Board is dated 20.12.1985, that is much after the alleged gas
leak and the plaintiff was very much on duty when he received the letter
dated 20.12.1985 from the Railway Recruitment Board.
7. In view of the above I do not find any merit in the appeal. There
is no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment and decree which
calls for interference of this Court. The appeal being devoid of merits, is
dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
February 07, 2011 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ak
