Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1510 (HP)

Jai Lal v. National Insurance Company Ltd.

2015-10-14

RAJIV SHARMA

body2015
JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. This appeal is instituted against the order dated 23.8.2006, rendered by the learned Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, Sundernagar, Distt., Mandi, H.P. in File No. 4. 2. Key facts, necessary for the adjudication of this FAO are that the appellant was employed as driver with respondent No. 2. He was drawing salary of Rs. 6,000/- per month. He met with an accident on 13.2.2004 at Mohali, Punjab. He suffered fracture in his left leg below the ankle. Collar bone was fractured and he also received injury on the forehead. He was 35 years of age at the time of the accident. According to the appellant, he suffered 100% disability due to the accident. He was unable to discharge his duties as driver. 3. Reply was filed by respondents No. 1 & 2. 4. The learned Commissioner framed the issues. The learned Commissioner awarded a sum of Rs. 21,450/-. Hence, this appeal. 5. Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate for the appellant, on the basis of the substantial questions of law framed, has vehemently argued that his client has suffered 100% functional disability due to the accident dated 13.2.2004. On the other hand, Mr. Deepak Bhasin and Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocates for the respective respondents, have supported the order dated 23.8.2006. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the records and order very carefully. 7. The appellant has appeared as PW-1. According to him, when he was getting down from the vehicle, he was struck by the Car and he was taken to the hospital. He remained in the hospital for more than a month. He was paid Rs. 3000/- per month as wages and Rs. 100/- per day as ‘bhatta’. PW-2 Dr. Ramesh Sen has proved disability certificate. He has assessed the disability of the appellant at 27%. PW-3 Mahinder Singh has proved FIR Ext. AW-3/A dated 24.4.2006. 8. RW-1/1 Dr. Mussarat Javed, deposed that he is working in PHC Jadol. He has issued MLC to the appellant. He has also admitted that the licence is renewed after receiving the medical certificate. The appellant had come to him on 8.1.2005. The appellant was fit to discharge duties of driver when he examined him on 8.1.2005. 9. RW-1/2 Sant Ram has proved medical certificate dated 8.1.2005. 10. RW-2/1 Bhram Dass deposed that he has purchased the vehicle in the year 1998. The appellant had come to him on 8.1.2005. The appellant was fit to discharge duties of driver when he examined him on 8.1.2005. 9. RW-1/2 Sant Ram has proved medical certificate dated 8.1.2005. 10. RW-2/1 Bhram Dass deposed that he has purchased the vehicle in the year 1998. The registration was in his name. The appellant was engaged as driver in the year 2003. He was paying Rs. 3000/- per month to the appellant. 11. RW-2/2 Sant Ram, who had earlier appeared as RW-1/2 deposed that the driving licence was renewed w.e.f. 15.1.2005 to 14.1.2010. 12. The accident has duly been proved by HC Mahinder Singh, No. 8271, Police Station Mohali, Ropar, who has produced copy of FIR AW-3/A. The age of the appellant at the time of accident was 35 years. The driving licence is Ext. RW-2/A. The driving licence was originally issued by RLA Solan. It was renewed by RLA Sundernagar, from time to time. The appellant was possessing valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. The learned Commissioner has assessed the income of the appellant at Rs. 3000/- per month. 13. The moot question involved in this appeal is whether the appellant has suffered 100% permanent disability or not. The disability of the appellant has been assessed at 27% as per Ext. A-1. The appellant was also examined by Dr. M. Javed. The driving licence of the appellant was renewed on the basis of fitness certificate issued by Dr. M. Javed. While determining the compensation, the functional disability has to be seen. In the present case, the appellant was driver who has not suffered 100% disability even after the injury received by him in the accident, since his licence has been renewed on the basis of the fitness certificate issued by Dr. M. Javed. It is not one of those cases where the driver has met with an accident and is not in a position to drive the vehicle. Thus, the Workmen Commissioner has rightly come to the conclusion that the disability has ceased the moment the appellant has renewed his driving licence, on the basis of the certificate issued by Dr. M. Javed. His disability was only 27% as per Ext. A-1. The learned Workmen Commissioner has rightly awarded sum of Rs. 21,450/- to the appellant, strictly as per the provisions of the Workmen Compensation Act. 14. M. Javed. His disability was only 27% as per Ext. A-1. The learned Workmen Commissioner has rightly awarded sum of Rs. 21,450/- to the appellant, strictly as per the provisions of the Workmen Compensation Act. 14. Accordingly, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.