Sh. Surender Yadav vs Sh. Ram Swarup Batra & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 3437 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                              Date of Judgment: 20.07.2011

+             MAC APPEAL NO. 8/2009

SH. SURENDER YADAV                         ...........Appellant
                  Through:           Mr. M.A. Khan and Mr. Mirza
                                     Javed, Advocates .

                    Versus

SH. RAM SWARUP BATRA & ORS.       ..........Respondents
                  Through: Ms. Sumar Bagga, Advocate
                            for respondent no. 3/IFFCO
                            Tokio.

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. In this appeal the appellant is seeking enhancement of the

amount which had been awarded in terms of the award dated

26.09.2008 vide which a sum of ` 1,04,300/- had been awarded as

compensation in favour of the claimant who was the injured

having suffered injuries in an accident which had been taken

place on 08.05.2006. The appellant is not aggrieved by the

compensation awarded under any of the other heads except under

the head of "compensation on account of loss of leave". In this

head, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of `44,764/- as

compensation payable to the claimant.

2. There is no dispute about the salary of the petitioner; the

salary of the petitioner had been computed by the Tribunal at

`11,191 per month after necessary deductions. The learned

counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this court to

Ex.PW-1/1 which was the certificate appended by him alongwith

his petition on 31.07.2006; his contention is that this certificate

was issued up to date of filing of this petition and that is why it

finds mention that the petitioner was absent only up to that date.

3. Attention has been drawn to Ex. PW-12/A (Colly). These are

various documents proved by the petitioner wherein the clinic of

Dr. Sachdeva has given a fitness certificate to the petitioner on

02.04.2007 certifying that he is fit to join his duty with effect from

01.04.2007. The other documents annexed as part of Ex. PW 12/A

also show that all dates prior to 01.04.2007 Dr. Sachdeva had

noted that the petitioner was suffering from a fracture of femur

bone as a result of which leave absence of the petitioner had been

permitted.

4. This contention of the petitioner appears to be prima facie

correct but it appears to have been ignored by the Tribunal. The

record does show that the petitioner remained absent from his

duty from 08.04.2006 to 01.04.2007 that is for a period of 11

months; Tribunal had awarded compensation on account of loss of

leave for a period of four months only. This is liable to be

corrected. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to compensation

on account of loss of leave for a period of 11 months which

multiplied with his salary of `11,191/- is calculated at

Rs.1,23,101/-.

5. The award is not challenged on any other ground.

6. The award is, accordingly, modified only qua the

compensation on account of loss of leave which instead of `

44,764/- will now be read as ` 1,23,101/-.

7. Appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

8. The petition is disposed of.

9. Copy of this order be given dasti under signature of the

Court Master.

INDERMEET KAUR, J.

JULY 20, 2011 rb