SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(Raj) 627

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ
Hemant Kumar Meena – Appellant
Versus
Kesar Singh – Respondent


Advocates Appeared
Vinay Mathur, for Appellant

RAFIQ, J.—For the reasons mentioned in the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay, the same is allowed and the delay in filing appeal is condoned.

2. Appellant was awarded Rs.8,43,900/- for the permanent disability sustained by him to the extent of 30%. He approached for enhancement.

3. Contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the actual salary that appellant was getting was Rs.12,128/- from the BSNL. Out of that salary, Rs.1900/- was deducted. All deductions could not be disallowed. Learned counsel submitted that the appellant sustained disability of 63.33%. Certificate was issued by the expert medical practitioner, who examined his medical records. Tribunal erred in law while believing only 30% permanent disability. Learned counsel submitted that a very meager amount of compensation has been awarded under the head of pain and suffering and loss of future income, which should therefore be enhanced. He remained hospitalised on number of occasions in hospitals at Jodhpur, Ahmedabad and AIIMS New Delhi and was subjected to surgery. Tribunal has found that disablement that was sustained by the appellant in his right hand

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top