Sitaram Sahu vs Madhya Pradesh Shashan

S.K. Gangele, J.—These two appeals have been filed against the common order dated 26.6.2006 passed in Claim Case No. 54 of 2005. One appeal has been filed by State Government with regard to quantum of compensation and another appeal has been filed by the claimant for enhancement of compensation.

Claimant Sitaram Sahu had been working at the relevant time in the Home Guard as constable. On 7.8.2004 at about 2 p.m. he had been driving a jeep bearing registration No. MP 03-1121 and going from Bhind to Gwalior. At Kendriya Vidya-laya near Air Force Station the jeep was dashed by the unknown vehicle. In the aforesaid accident right hand of the claimant had been chopped off. Report of the accident was lodged at the police station. Two operations were performed on the claimant at Madhav Dispensary, Gwalior.

The claimant filed the claim application claiming a total compensation of Rs. 12,40,000. Tribunal has held that right hand of the claimant was amputated and after accident his services were terminated as Home Guard. The Claims Tribunal had further held that the jeep was of the ownership of the State Government in Police Department and awarded total compensation of Rs. 2,52,000.

Learned Counsel for the claimant has submitted that the Claims Tribunal has not assessed disability of the claimant properly and less compensation has been awarded. Contrary to this learned Counsel for the State Government has submitted that the claimant had been driving the jeep without permission of the officers of Department. Hence the Department is not liable to pay compensation.

Claimant in his statement before the Tribunal stated that at the relevant time he was working as constable in Home Guard. There is no permanent post of Home Guard. After accident his service has been terminated. He further stated that on 7.8.2004 he had been driving jeep bearing registration No. MP 03-1121 and jeep was dashed by an unknown vehicle at around 2 p.m. and in the aforesaid accident he received injury in his right hand and his right hand has been amputated in J.H. Hospital from above elbow. He further stated that at the relevant time he had been getting monthly salary of Rs. 2,500 and after that he had become unemployed. In his cross-examination he stated that he was on duty when he was driving vehicle and he came to drop one Ram Prasad. Dr. Sameer Gupta who was working at J.H. Hospital, Gwalior in his deposition stated that the claimant suffered injuries in the accident and his right hand was amputated above elbow.

Retired Deputy Superintendent of Police, Munalal Tyagi who was working at the relevant time stated that the duty of the claimant was assigned on jeep bearing registration No. MP 03-1121 for driving the jeep. He further stated that the claimant had been driving the jeep when the accident occurred.

From the aforesaid fact, it is clear that the claimant had been driving the jeep at the relevant time and in the aforesaid accident his right hand above elbow had been amputated.

Hon''ble Supreme Court in Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Shrinivas Sabata 1976 ACJ 141 (SC) with regard to disability of the carpenter whose left arm above elbow was amputated has held as under:

(4) It has not been disputed before us that the injury in question was caused to the respondent by an accident which arose out of and in the course of his employment with the appellant. It is also not in dispute that the injury resulted in amputation of his left arm at the elbow. It has, however, been argued that the injury did not result in permanent total disablement of the respondent and that the Commissioner committed a gross error of law in taking that view as there was only partial disablement within the meaning of Section 2(1)(g) of the Act which should have been deemed to have resulted in permanent partial disablement of the nature referred to in Item 3 of Part II of Schedule I to the Act. This argument has been advanced on the ground that the amputation was from 8" from tip of acromion and less than 41/2" below tip of olecranon. As will appear, there is no force in this argument.

(5) The expression ''total disablement'' has been defined in Section 2(1)(1) of the Act as follows:

(1) �total disablement'' means such disablement, whether of a temporary or permanent nature as incapacitates workman for all work which he was capable of performing at the time of the accident resulting in such disablement.

It has not been disputed before us that the injury was of such nature as to cause permanent disablement to the respondent, and the question for consideration is that whether the disablement incapacitated the respondent for all work which he was capable of performing at the time of the accident. The Commissioner has examined the question and recorded his finding as follows:

The injured workman in this case is carpenter by profession. By loss of the left hand above elbow, he has evidently been rendered unfit for the work of carpenter as the work of carpentry cannot be done by one hand only.

This is obviously a reasonable and correct finding. Counsel for appellant has not been able to assail it on any ground and it does not require to be corrected in this appeal. There is also no justification for the other argument which has been advanced with reference to Item 3 of Part II of Schedule I, because it was not the appellant''s case before the Commissioner that amputation of the arm was from 8" from tip of acromion to less than 41/2" below the tip of olecranon. A new case cannot therefore be allowed to be set up on facts which have not been admitted or established.

From the above law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court, it is clear that there is 100 per cent permanent disability to the appellant. Appellant was working as constable in Home Guard and he himself stated that he was getting monthly salary of Rs. 2,500. Hence, annual income comes to Rs. 30,000. The Tribunal applied the multiplier of 16 after holding the age of the appellant 35 to 36 years. In my opinion, that is proper. After applying the multiplier of 16 the total loss of income comes to Rs. 4,80,000. The Tribunal has granted Rs. 25,000 on other heads. In my opinion, that would be just and proper. After adding aforesaid amount, the appellant is entitled to get total compensation of Rs. 5,05,000. Tribunal has already granted compensation of Rs. 2,52,000 to the claimant, hence the claimant will get enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 2,53,000 (rupees two lakh fifty-three thousand). Amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the application before the Claims Tribunal up to realization. The impugned award is modified to the extent indicated above.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

No order as to costs.