Allowed

Sanjay Kumar Prasad Sanjay P v. Arun Kumar Mandal And Ors.

Jharkhand HC5 Sept 2012MA/265/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed an appeal against an award of Rs. 1,00,000 for leg injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The court held the earlier award insufficient and enhanced the compensation to Rs. 1,50,000 despite the tribunal disputing the genuineness of some medical bills.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs. 1,00,000 to Rs. 1,50,000; Respondent directed to deposit said sum via tribunal within three months.

Sanjay Kumar Prasad Sanjay P Vs Arun Kumar Mandal… — Motor Accident Claims | Jharkhand HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI M.A. No 265 of 2008

¶2

Sanjoy Kumar Prasad @

¶3

Sanjoy Prasad Bhagat .... Appellant -Versus-

¶4

Arun Kumar Mandal & others … Respondents

¶5

¶6

CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE JAYA ROY

¶7

For the Appellants: : M/s K.P. Deo & Girish Mohan, Advocates For the Respondent No.3 : M/s. H. Kr. Singh & B.K. Singh, Advocates

¶8

12/ 0 5.09.2012

¶9

This appeal is being heard for final disposal at admission stage with consent of the parties.

¶10

The claimant appellant has filed this appeal against the Award dated 13.05.2008 passed by 5^th Additional District Judgecum-Additional Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, (F.T.C.) Dumka in Title Claim Case No. 44 of 2005 whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-by way of compensation to the Claimant/appellant for sustaining leg injury.

¶11

The fact of the case lies in a narrow compass. The claimant Sanjoy Kumar Prasad @ Sanjoy Prasad Bhagat (the appellant) on 26.04.2005 at about 10.30 A.M., he was going to Gopikandar Block by his Hero Honda Motor cycle No. JH-04B-0164 near Ranga Mission Pakur Road, suddenly one truck bearing registration No. WB-37-7154 which was rashly and negligently driven by its driver, had dashed his motorcycle resulted injury to his right leg and hand. The motorcycle was also damaged. As result of the accident, he sustained compound fracture of right patella, fracture in right finger, fracture of neck, right humerous and other severe grievous injuries causing permanent disablement. After the accident, he was sent to Amrapara Hospital from there he was taken to Dumka Hospital then to Premier Clinic and Nursing Home where he was admitted on 27.4.2005 where operation of his right leg was performed, plaster was made, he was confined to bed in the nursing home till 7.5.05 and he was advised to take complete bed rest. He is a business man aged about 42 years and earning Rs.4,100/- per month. He claimed compensation of Rs.19,22,900/-.

¶12

The respondent no.3 /opposite party no.3 appeared and filed written statement controverting the statements made in the claim petition stating interalia that the claimant is now fit and able

¶13

to walk freely and to ride motorcycle. The disablement certificate does not show that he had any permanent disablement. There is no authentic bill for medical expenses and Hospital expenses claimed to the tune of Rs.95,000/-. The driver who was driving the truck in question had no valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident. The claim of the claimant is very excessive and unreasonable.

¶14

In order to prove the case, the claimant has examined 6 witnesses. P.W.4 is claimant himself, P.W.6 is Dr. Hemant Kumar Murmu. The document exhibited are Ext.1 income certificate dated 20.9.2005, Ext-2 medical certificate, Ext-3 and 3/1 prescriptions, Ext-4 to 4/8 series are Cash Memo of New Jupiter Drug House Ext-4/9 to 4/13 are Cash Memo of life Guard Medical Stores, Ext-7 is receipt of Baishaki Ext-8 Driving license, Ext-9 Insurance Policy and many other exhibits showing the money receipts of the Doctors and Bed charges of the Nursing Home etc.

¶15

The opposite party no.3/ respondent no.3 has examined only one witnesses namely Md. Shoaib as a D.W.1.

¶16

Mr. K.P. Deo, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the court below has given a finding that there is 40% permanent disability of the claimant, therefore the amount awarded by the court below is a very meagre and unreasonable amount. He has further submitted that the claimant has produced the entire medical bills, X-ray plates, Money receipt of the Doctors to support of his medical expenses. It is further submitted that the D.W.1 who is Investigator of United India Insurance Company and examined by the O.P. No.3 in this case, has also admitted that the truck in question was insured in the United India Insurance Company (the respondent no.3).

¶17

Mr. Harendar Kumar Singh the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.3 has submitted that the compensation granted by the tribunal i.e. Rs.1,00,000/- is sufficient in fact and circumstances of the present case and the award needs no interference.

¶18

From the impugned award, I find the tribunal has held that the case is maintainable and the accident actually took place on 26.4.2005 in which Sanjoy Kumar Prasad was injured and had sustained fracture injury in his leg. The tribunal has further held that the said Sanjoy Kumar Prasad was handicapped for more

¶19

than 40%. It has further come that the claimant was 42 years of age at the time of accident and he was earning Rs.4000/- per month. Considering the aforesaid findings, the tribunal has granted the total amount of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant.

¶20

After hearing the counsels of both the parties, I find that admittedly the claimant had received fracture in his leg due to the aforesaid accident but the documents filed by the claimant to prove the medical expenses, have been disbelieved by the tribunal as genuine. Considering the all this aspect, in my opinion a lump-sum amount of Rs.1,50,000/- will be just and proper compensation. Therefore, I enhance the amount of compensation from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.1,50.000/-. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the Insurance Company (respondent no.3) is directed to deposit an account payee cheque amounting Rs.1,50,000/- in the name of the appellant (claimant) in the tribunal within a period of three months from the date of this order and the tribunal immediately after deposit of the said cheque, handover the same to the claimant after proper verification of his identity.

¶21

(Jaya Roy, J.)

¶22

Anit

Sanjay Kumar Prasad Sanjay P v. Arun Kumar Mandal And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Kumar Prasad Sanjay P v. Arun Kumar Mandal And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rookmania Devi Vs Ideal Financing Industries And O

Kartic Gupta Alias Kartik Sao and Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Sunita Devi Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Jaigy Oraon Jatru Oraon And an Vs New India Assurance Co.Ltd. And

Asraf Khan And Ors. Vs Tata Motors Ltd. And Anr.

M/S Oriental Insurance Company Vs Mala Devi And Ors.

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Rookmania Devi Vs Ideal Financing Industries And O

Kartic Gupta Alias Kartik Sao and Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Sunita Devi Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Jaigy Oraon  Jatru Oraon And an Vs New India Assurance Co.Ltd. And

Asraf Khan And Ors. Vs Tata Motors Ltd. And Anr.

M/S Oriental Insurance Company Vs Mala Devi And Ors.

Jaigy Oraon Jatru Oraon And an Vs New India Assurance Co.Ltd. And