Appeal against an award concerning industrial injury compensation. The court rejected arguments regarding salary calculation discrepancies and the assessment of functional disability versus permanent disability. Compensation components were held to be correctly awarded by the Tribunal.
The appeal was dismissed without interference in the Tribunal's award.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 04.08.2011
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
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
MAC APPEAL No.84/2010 Page 1 of 3
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 MAC APPEAL No.84/2010 Page 2 of 3
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.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
AUGUST 04, 2011 a
Page 3 of 3
MAC APPEAL No.84/2010
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the salary miscalculation and functional disability assessment by the Tribunal warrant interference with the award?
Whether the quantum of compensation for loss of amenities, pain and suffering, and travel charges requires modification?
OM PRAKASH
ARUN KUMAR AND OTHERS
INDERMEET KAUR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
