Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and ors. Vs. Ramotar - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
motor vehicles act, 1939 - motor accident--compensation to injured--right leg shortened, left leg and two fingers crushed--injured poor washerman cannot lift weight, difficulty in walking and doing his work--doctor not mentioning percentage of disability--held, his claim for compensation be accepted by beneficial interpretation in his favour.;the right leg has also been shortened and it would never be now completely cured. the left leg two fingers have been crushed and that is also permanent disability of fingers on account of which he would not be able to wear shoes and there would be lot of difficulties in walking, running and lifting any weight.;with these injuries the medical opinion is that he would be handicapped as he cannot go he cannot ran, he cannot lift the weight & naturally his tragedy and his difficulties in the performance of the job has been rightly appreciated by the tribunal. the tribunal has stated that incapacity is 50 per cent. it must be said that in the absence of medical evidence to the contrary disability or incapacity of such a washerman cannot be weighed in golden scales. it has to be accepted and accepted by beneficial interpretation in his favour for social security.;appeal dismissed with costs - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. - 313 of 1985. his submission is that the doctor has failed to assess the percentage of permanent loss of disability of the injured and therefore the tribunal has acted in an arbitrary manner in holding that there would be 50 percent loss of strength of capacity to work of ramotar who is doing the job of a washer man. it is to be appreciated that the claimant is a washer man with very poor resources and lowest in ladder in the society. the corporation has mighty resources and it could have called the best doctors. the corporation was also in a position to get all medical record examined by experts or a board from the hospital of the best doctors available because there could not have been any paucity of funds or resources. then scales between a corporation, a public sector undertaking of the roadways against a poor washer man are now to be weighed by this court, because it is established principle of interpretation of law regarding social welfare legislation that the court should not shut its eyes to the self necessities of times and the conditions of society. 4. in that view of the matter i am constrained to observe that the handicapped washer man and that too an injured a victim of accident with poor resources is facing in this case, it would be appreciated against the mighty resources of the corporation. 5. in this view of the matter i would not like to leave the claimant high and dry simple because the doctor has failed to mention specifically what was the percentage of loss of capacity of working of washer man. the washer man did his best he called a doctor, he examined him and it was for the medical experts to say so. in this view of the matter i would like to maintain the finding of the tribunal in the matter of compensation more so because the washerman stated that he can not do any work now and there is no evidence in rebuttal to it. after all why should the poor man be disbelieved when he states that after these injuries he has been incapacitated and cannot work as a washerman. it is well known that a job of washer man is hazardous. it is a job where the washerman has to put all his labour, energy sweat and in all seasons and if he cannot go to distant places like ghats where he can wash the cloths, it is not possible for him to earn his livelihood. 6. consequently the appeal failed and is hereby dismissed with costs.guman mal lodha, j.1. mr. gupta, learned counsel for the appellants has raised a very pertinent point, in this appeal by the rajasthan state road transport corporation against ramotar son of birdhi chand, in s.b. civil misc. appeal no. 313 of 1985. his submission is that the doctor has failed to assess the percentage of permanent loss of disability of the injured and therefore the tribunal has acted in an arbitrary manner in holding that there would be 50 percent loss of strength of capacity to work of ramotar who is doing the job of a washer man.2. mr. srivastava has submitted that the statement of doctor read with the statement of ramotar makes it clear that ramotar in this accident lost two fingers of the leg and there was a fracture in the thigh and knee. ramotar has come in evidence himself and stated on oath that he cannot earn any thing now, although he was earing rs. 700/- per month earlier. the tribunal has held that this assertion of ramotar that he cannot earn anything cannot be believed because the fracture of the right thigh and knee has now been treated and there has been only partial loss of movement in the right knee. doctor rajendrakumar pw 4 who examined the injured has stated that the fracture of right thigh and right knee results in partial loss of movement creating difficulty in walking and sitting. he has stated that the right leg has also been shortened it would never be now completely cured. the left leg two fingers have been crushed and that is also permanent disability of fingers on account of which he would not be able to wear shoes and there would be lot of difficulties in walking running and lifting any weight. it is true that mr. gupta's submission is correct that in terms of percentage of disability the doctor has not stated anything. the question is whether on account of this the injured should be kept high and dry and no compensation should be allowed. mr. gupta pointed out that in employees insurance act, 1948, the schedule has been given for compensation and in fact the result of permanent disablement has been provided in part ii. amputation of lower limbs have been dealt with in s. nos. 17 to 30. these serials show that in case of amputation of both feet percentage of loss of earning capacity should be 90 per cent then comes the amputation or of both feet 80 per cent and loss of both toe of both feet 40 per cent. then there is corresponding decree from 30,20, 19,11,17,16. the other injuries are mentioned in s.no. 49 and 50 where there are only some injuries of two toes of one foot which has been as 5 per cent and part of which shown as 2 per cent. the note says that the complete and permanent loss of the use of three limbs and the member referred to in schedule shall be deemed to be equivalent to loss of that limb or that member.now as the evidence stands it is very difficult in the present case to say that whether there was any particular type of loss in terms of the schedule, obviously there was no amputation and yet the evidence is that the claimant was permanently incompleted so far as his capacity to work as washer man lifting of weight running etc., is concerned. amputation have been variously treated as 90 per cent loss. loss of both toes of both feet have been treated as 40 per cent loss of earning capacity. imputation of a heap is 90 per cent. now in the present case the medical evidence is that in the leg two fingers were totally crushed. crushing of the fingers with total loss has not been provided for any where specifically. in my opinion any exercise by this court for categorising the loss under the provisions of the employees state insurance act would be too hazardous because neither the medical evidence has been led by any parties on that basis nor any specific category is being shown by any of the parties. the loss of toes of both feet have been provided for but not loss of fingers in the schedule so far as pointed out to me.3. in my opinion it was the duty of the doctor to have mentioned that what was the percentage of loss but the question is that whether the, absence of that would result in deprivation of claimant from any compensation. it is to be appreciated that the claimant is a washer man with very poor resources and lowest in ladder in the society. the corporation has mighty resources and it could have called the best doctors. the corporation was also in a position to get all medical record examined by experts or a board from the hospital of the best doctors available because there could not have been any paucity of funds or resources. then scales between a corporation, a public sector undertaking of the roadways against a poor washer man are now to be weighed by this court, because it is established principle of interpretation of law regarding social welfare legislation that the court should not shut its eyes to the self necessities of times and the conditions of society.4. in that view of the matter i am constrained to observe that the handicapped washer man and that too an injured a victim of accident with poor resources is facing in this case, it would be appreciated against the mighty resources of the corporation.5. in this view of the matter i would not like to leave the claimant high and dry simple because the doctor has failed to mention specifically what was the percentage of loss of capacity of working of washer man. the washer man did his best he called a doctor, he examined him and it was for the medical experts to say so. the present one is not a criminal case where the benefit of doubt is to be given to any party. the present one is a case of social welfare legislation where the compensation is to be paid. in this view of the matter i would like to maintain the finding of the tribunal in the matter of compensation more so because the washerman stated that he can not do any work now and there is no evidence in rebuttal to it. after all why should the poor man be disbelieved when he states that after these injuries he has been incapacitated and cannot work as a washerman. it is well known that a job of washer man is hazardous. he has to take the cloths etc. to the ghat then at the ghat the washerman is required to exert entire strength which he has got. it is not a job of a clear or a white collared officer who can sit in an air conditioned room and do some work by finger. it is a job where the washerman has to put all his labour, energy sweat and in all seasons and if he cannot go to distant places like ghats where he can wash the cloths, it is not possible for him to earn his livelihood. with these injuries the medical opinion is that he would be handicapped as he cannot go, he cannot ran, he cannot lift the weight and naturally his tragedy and his difficulties in the performance of the job has been rightly appreciated by the tribunal. the tribunal has stated that incapacity is 50 per cent. it must be said that in the absence of medical evidence to the contrary disability or incapacity of such a washerman cannot be weighed in golden scales. it has to be accepted and accepted by beneficial interpretation in his favour for social security.6. consequently the appeal failed and is hereby dismissed with costs.7. mr. gupta, learned counsel for the corporation submitted that in such matters the medical evidence must be specific precise and exact. this submission of mr. gupta is correct and i expect that whenever the corporation, or the owner of a truck or a vehicle who has got vast resources, is one of the parties, he would take care to see that the best medical evidence is examined and experts are examined and the burden is not placed on the poor victims. this observation of mine would be taken by the tribunal in the right perspective in the interpretation of social welfare legislation for social justice, for providing social security.