MAC Appeal No.342/2010 Mahender v.Tuli Ram & Ors. Page 1 Of 2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Reserve: May 25, 2010 Date of Order: July 02, 2010 + MAC Appeal 342/2010 & CM No.10073/2010 % 02.07.2010 Mahender ...Appellant Through: K.K. Dubey, Advocate Versus Tuli Ram & Ors. ...Respondents Through: nemo JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? 3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? JUDGMENT 1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant accompanied with an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 103 days in filing the present appeal. The grounds as stated in the application are that the appellant was very depressed due to loss of his livelihood after the accident and he was financially shattered and, therefore, could not file the appeal in time before the Court. The present appeal was filed after 103 days of delay. 2. The grounds narrated by the appellant in the application are quite vague and evasive. The accident of the appellant took place on 14th September 2005. The appellant had injured his right leg in the accident. The appellant filed a claim petition before the Tribunal in time. If he could file the claim petition soon after the accident despite sustaining injuries, it is not understood as to how he became depressed after passing of award when the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.4,75,000/- in his favour. The MAC Appeal No.342/2010 Mahender v.Tuli Ram & Ors. Page 2 Of 2 reason given for not filing the appeal within time is obviously baseless. I find no force in the application for condonation of delay. The application is hereby dismissed. 3. Even otherwise , I have gone through the award passed by learned Tribunal. The appellant suffered 81% permanent locomotor impairment of one leg. The Tribunal after taking into account the provisions of Workmen Compensation Act considered the disability of appellant as 50%. Since the appellant had failed to place on record proof regarding his employment, the Tribunal, taking into consideration the minimum wages as applicable on the date of accident at Rs.3166/- per month applied a multiplier of 18, did not deduct any amount towards misc expenses etc and awarded a compensation for loss of earning to the tune of Rs.3,41,928/- which under no circumstances can be said to be inadequate. If the Tribunal has followed the judgment of Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar Vs. Ram Singh Gaud, VI(2007) ACC 716 SC, the Tribunal should have deducted 1/3rd towards misc expenses out of the income of the appellant and then taken loss of income. The learned Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering, a sum of Rs.1 lac towards his prospects of marriage and awarded medical expenses on the basis of evidence produced before it. I find that the award passed by learned Tribunal was just and fair and need no interference. The appeal is hereby dismissed being without merits and barred by time. July 02, 2010 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J. rd