Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2559 (RAJ)

Jagtar Singh v. Sardar Gurudayal

2019-09-23

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2019
JUDGMENT Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - The appellant claimant has preferred this appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 seeking enhancement of the compensation amount awarded vide judgment dated 28.2.2001 by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Udaipur. 2. The unfortunate accident happened on 22.9.1989 near Kagdar Canal while the appellant who was driver on Truck No. PCJ 4429 and going from Udaipur to Kherwara and as a result of this accident, the appellant sustained severe injuries and suffered 65% permanent disability as per medical report. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the doctor has opined that it would be difficult to perform the duties as driver after such an accident and hence, it is a clear case of 100% permanent disability. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent insurance company refutes the submission and submits that the opinion of the doctor has to be construed in right perspective. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in (1) Pratap Narain Singh Deo vs. Srinivas Sabata and anr. reported in (1976) 1 SCC 289 and (2) S. Suresh vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. And Anr. reported in 2009 LawSuit (SC) 1956. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the appellant has not submitted any proof/evidence of surrender of his driving license on record. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record as well as the precedent law. 6. In both the aforesaid cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the law that in case, the disability is so severe that it totally renders the claimant as non-performer like amputation of leg of a driver or amputation of hand of a tailor, then the same has to be taken as 100% disability. On a perusal of the facts of the present case, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a case of 100% permanent disability and the medical certificate of 65% permanent disability has to be believed. It is not the case of amputation, therefore, the precedent law cited are applicable to the facts of the present case. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the compensation to the extent of Rs.70,496/- has been rightly awarded by the learned authority below. 6. It is not the case of amputation, therefore, the precedent law cited are applicable to the facts of the present case. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the compensation to the extent of Rs.70,496/- has been rightly awarded by the learned authority below. 6. In view of the above, this Court does not find any reason to make interference in the impugned judgment on merits. However, looking into the scheme of the Act, the interest awarded is enhanced from 6% to 12% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition. 7. The present appeal is disposed of in the above terms. All pending applications also stand disposed of.