Commissioner of Income Tax-II, vs. M/s. Kura Homes Pvt. Ltd.,

Learned Court below after hearing the parties and after perusing the exhibited documents and oral evidences, elaborately dealt the issues framed and thereafter, found that the claimant is entitled to receive compensation amount. Resultantly, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,31,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim application till its realization, as compensation to be paid by the Insurance Co. to the claimant within 30 days from this order. 5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned award dated 16.07.2015, as a meagre amount of Rs.2,31,000/- only has been awarded by the learned Tribunal, appellant-claimant has approached this Court for enhancement of the claim amount.

Ms. Swati Shalini, learned counsel appearing for the appellant- claimant, assailing the judgment of the learned Court below argues that award dated 16.07.2015 is bad in law as well as on fact and is liable to be quashed and set aside. Learned counsel further argues that the learned Court below has failed to take into consideration the medical certificate and income tax acknowledgment produced by the appellant-claimant. Learned counsel further argues that though the claimant has suffered 50% disability but while awarding the compensation, the learned Court below has only considered 15% disability of the claimant, though the claimant has submitted medical certificate showing his disability as 50%. Learned counsel further argues that though the monthly income of the claimant is Rs.19000/- as per his ITR but the learned Court below has considered only Rs.5000/- per month as his income. Learned counsel further argues that since the claimant has sustained grievous injuries he was admitted in hospital for treatment for more than 15 days i.e. from 18.11.2011 to 02.12.2011. 7. To buttress her arguments, learned counsel for the appellant- claimant places heavy reliance on the following judgments: (I) Jagdish Vs. Mohan & Ors. [(2018) 4 SCC 571]. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Insurance Co. vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-claimant and submits that the disability certificate is forged since the accident took place in Jamshedpur, whereas, certificate was obtained from Rohtak and the claimant has failed to submit the reasons for obtaining the medical certificate from another State which is far away from the place of occurrence. Further, the doctor who has issued the medical certificate has not been examined and as such, as per the plethora of judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as of this Court, the said certificate is not reliable. Learned counsel further argues that no reason has been given as to on what basis doctor has come to the conclusion that claimant has suffered 50% disability. Learned counsel further argues that ITR submitted by the claimant is also doubtful since 70% of the gross income cannot be deducted under the head of TDS.

Having heard the parties and upon considering the materials available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the case of the appellant needs consideration. Admittedly the accident has not been denied and from the documents brought on record and from the pleadings it appears that due to accident, finger of right hand of the claimant was amputated. However, the learned Tribunal has considered only 15% disability though the certificate submitted by the appellant shows 50% disability. Though learned Tribunal has assessed compensation payable but a very meagre amount of Rs.2,31,000/- has been awarded to the appellant. 10. The similar issued fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Jagdish v. Mohan, (2018) 4 SCC 571, wherein in para-8 the Hon’ble Court has observed as under: “8. In assessing the compensation payable the settled principles need to be borne in mind. A victim who suffers a permanent or temporary disability occasioned by an accident is entitled to the award of compensation. The award of compensation must cover among others, the following aspects:

Further, as per the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 at least 30% disability ought to have been considered. The relevant part of the said act is quoted herein below: 3*[PART II LIST OF INJURIES DEEMED TO RESULT IN PERMANENT PARTIAL DISABLEMENT] Amputation cases-upper limbs (either arm) Sl. No. Description of Injury Percentage of los of earning capacity 4*[1] Amputation through shoulder joint 90 4*[2] Amputation below shoulder with stump less than 8" from tip of acromion 80 4*[3] Amputation from 8" from tip of acromion to less than 4.5" below tip of olecranon 70 4*[4] Loss of a hand or of the thumb and four fingers of one hand or amputation from 4.5" below tip of olecranon 60 4*[5] Loss of thumb 30 4*[6] Loss of thumb and its metacarpal bone 40 4*[7] Loss of four fingers of one hand 50 4*[8] Loss of three fingers of one hand 30 4*[9] Loss of two fingers of one hand 20 4*[10] Loss of terminal phalanx of thumb 20

It appears that while making compensation in present case, the Court was not mindful of the fact that the claimant has suffered more than 30% disability and his four fingers were amputated. The arguments of learned counsel for the Insurance Company is not at all accepted that even if the fingers had been amputated, the claimant has not been stopped from working. Loss of fingers that also of the right hand, is complete

Pain and suffering 50,000 03. Compensation for loss of amenities and enjoyment in life 50,000 04. Medical Expenses and expenses for future treatment, transportation and special diet 1,00,000 05. Loss of expectation of life 25,000 06. Loss of earning during the period of hospitalization 2,500 50% of monthly income of Rs.5000

In view of the aforesaid observations and direction, the award is modified to the extent that the total amount of compensation to be paid to the claimant is enhanced to Rs.4,79,500 (Rupees Four Lakh Seventy Nine Thousand and Five Hundred) only. Since the claimant has already