1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No. 409 of 1997 RAJ KUMAR V/S R S R T C & ORS Mr. BHARAT SRIMALI & Mr. SHAMBHOO RATHORE, for the appellant / petitioner Mr. ANIL BACHHAWAT & Mr. MP GOSWAMI, for the respondent Date of Order : 26.9.2008 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. ORDER ----- The claimant has filed this appeal for enhancement of the compensation. Since the question of negligence etc. are not in controversy, I need not go into those aspects. The aspect of compensation has been decided by the learned Tribunal while deciding the issue no. 3. The relevant facts in that regard are, that according to the claimant he was 28 years of age at the time of accident, and was earning Rs. 3,000/- per month, and his right hand has become useless, due to injury, sustained in the accident, which is under treatment even till the date, and is not likely to be normal. To this effect the claimant has also deposed, and his younger brother Ramotar has also deposed that nuts and bolts have been fixed in the hand, and the hand has become totally useless. The learned Tribunal found, that the claimant has claimed to be serving in private employment, and is 2 continuing to receive treatment. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 15,000/- for the pain and agony. Then, since the claimant has produced the medical bills for Rs. 11,744/-, considering that the treatment is likely to continue, a sum of Rs. 15,000/- has been awarded on that count, and another sum of Rs. 10,000/- has been awarded for the future loss of income. Learned counsel for the appellant, assailing the award contended, that the appellant has suffered 70% permanent disablement, and therefore, the compensation awarded is grossly inadequate. I have considered the submissions, and perused the record, and find, that from the statement of claimant himself, which were recorded on 4.7.1996, it is clear, that some of the nails and plates have been removed, and one more operation was to be undertaken. While there is nothing to show as to what has been the consequence after second operation, i.e. whether any disability survives? It is a different story that from the documents available on record, it appears, that immediately after the accident he was operated on 13.8.1995, as appears from Ex. 8. Then, Ex.-50 is another document, being receipt for the charges for administration of anesthesia. Obviously, therefore, at that time some operation must have been undertaken. Documents in which regard has not been produced, and what has been the consequent survival of disability has also not been brought on record. Learned counsel for the appellant wanted me to 3 go through the certificate dated 1.10.1996, which has been produced on record on 11.2.1997. From perusal of order- sheets it transpires, that on 11.2.1997 final arguments in the claim were heard, and the claim was decided on the next date fixed, being 25.2.1997. Thus, this certificate has neither been tendered in evidence, nor had been proved, nor the certificate is original one. That apart this certificate catalogues the list of disabilities, i.e. the nature of injuries suffered, and the extent of disability sustained, and in this head entries appearing at No. “h, i, & j” are shown to be resulting into 70% disability, but admittedly in the certificate none of these injuries have been mentioned to have been sustained by the victim, still the Doctor has purportedly certified the appellant to have sustained 70% handicap. Looking to the nature of injuries, even if the matter were to be considered on the parameters of the list given in Schedule-I, appended to the Workmen’s Compensation Act, still the disability is not shown to be any permanent disablement. In that view of the matter, I do not find any ground to accept the contention that has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. That being the position, the compensation as awarded by the learned Tribunal cannot be said to be inadequate, requiring any interference by this Court in appeal. 4 The appeal thus has no force, and the same is, therefore, dismissed. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /Sushil/