Raghavendra Singh vs Lalla @ Harishankar and Others

P.K. Jaiswal, J.—This appeal is filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation. The appellant in an accident received injury and his left hand was amputated. In this appeal other findings are not under challenge. The only question is about quantum of compensation.

As regards nature of injuries Dr. J.K.S. Kushwaha (AW 4) has deposed that the appellant was admitted in the hospital on 19th May, 1999 at 8.20 in the night. His left hand was fully injured. On 20th May, 1999 by operation upper portion of the left hand was cut and hand was amputated. He deposed that the left hand was amputated above the elbow.

Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the hand was amputated from the shoulder joint, loss of earning capacity will be around 70%. Therefore, as per Part II of the Workmen''s Compensation Act, loss of earning capacity will be reduced to 60%. Injured claimed that he was working as a cleaner and he was earning Rs. 2,000 per month as salary and Rs. 50 per day as allowances and his total income was Rs. 3,500 per month. The appellant Raghavendra Singh (AW 1) in para 4 of his deposition deposed that he was cleaner in a truck and his salary was Rs. 2,000 per month + Rs. 50 per day as allowance. Copy of salary certificate issued by the truck owner is Ext. P-9. He further stated that due to amputation of his left hand now he is not in a position to do any work. The truck owner Sitaram Singh was examined as AW 2. He in para 1 of his deposition stated that he was paying Rs. 2,000 per month as salary to the appellant and Rs. 50 per day as allowance. In para 2 he admitted his signature in salary certificate (Ext. P-9). At the time of accident deceased was 28 years of age. Claims Tribunal after considering the evidence of A W1, AW 2 and AW 4 has held that left hand of the appellant was amputated and his loss of earning capacity was reduced to 60%. The Claims Tribunal further held that at the time of accident appellant was aged 28 years and on the basis of salary certificate held that his salary was Rs. 2,000 per month but disallowed the allowance of Rs. 50 per day on the ground that appellant failed to prove that he was getting daily allowance at the rate of Rs. 50 per day. It is also held by the Claims Tribunal that it was not specifically stated by the truck owner (AW 2) that whether he was paying daily allowance regularly or monthly and whether he used to pay allowance when he goes out of town. Considering the evidence and fact that injured was cleaner and cleaners and drivers normally get allowances apart from their salary and there is no cross-examination by the respondents on this issue nor there is any denial by the owner of the vehicle that appellant was not getting daily allowance. From the above facts it can be safely presumed that appellant was also getting daily allowance of Rs. 25 per day and his total income was Rs. 2,750 which includes salary and daily allowances. Therefore, the income of the injured is determined at Rs. 33,000 per year. His earning capacity is reduced to 60% and loss of income is determined at Rs. 19,800 per year. Injured was aged 28 years at the time of accident and hence proper multiplier will be 18. On applying multiplier of 18, compensation is determined at Rs. 3,56,400. Over and above this amount, appellant will also be entitled for Rs. 5,000 towards pain and suffering on account of grievous injuries. He remained in the hospital for about 15 days and he was treated for some time, therefore, he is entitled for further sum of Rs. 3,000 for treatment and expenses in the hospital. Thus, total compensation is determined at Rs. 3,66,400. Claimant will also be entitled to get interest at the rate of 6% on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of filing of this appeal.

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and award dated 24th July, 2000 is modified accordingly, as indicated above, without any order as to costs.