P.K. Shukla vs D.C.M. Ltd. and Another

Valmiki J Mehta, J.—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.

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 account of having allegedly suffered ailments on account of ileum gas leak from the factory of the Respondents/Defendants.

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.

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."

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 ileum 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 negative 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.

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.