Delhi High Court
Sh. Surender Yadav vs Sh. Ram Swarup Batra & Ors. on 20 July, 2011
Author: Indermeet Kaur
Bench: Indermeet Kaur
* 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 MAC Appeal No. 8/2009 Page 1 of 3 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.
MAC Appeal No. 8/2009 Page 2 of 3
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 MAC Appeal No. 8/2009 Page 3 of 3