The High Court dismissed a criminal revision appeal challenging an award for motor accident compensation by Additional District Judge-cum-MTVAT. The court held the Tribunal's assessment of 30% disability and 75% share for contributory negligence was not perverse or illegal.
The appeal was dismissed with no enhancement of compensation.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Misc. Appeal No.152 of 2010
Tej Narain Hansda Son of Mohan Manjhi Resident of Village – Khuntari Tola Post – Kusul Mundu, P.S. Jaridih District - Bokaro … … Appellant/Claimant Versus
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
--- For the Appellant : Mr. Arvind Kr. Lall, Advocate For the Resp. No.3 : Mr. Alok Lal, Advocate For the Resp. No.2 : Mr. Satish Kumar, Advocate ---
16/21.01.2019 Heard Mr. Arvind Kr. Lall, counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant.
2
2. Heard Mr. Alok lal, counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.3.
3. Heard Mr. Satish Kumar, counsel appearing on behalf of the driver of the truck (respondent no.2).
4. Counsel for the parties submit that the owner of the vehicle has expired and accordingly the proceeding has abated against the owner of the vehicle namely Jitendra Singh (respondent no.1) and in connection with abatement order dated 31.08.2015 has been passed by this Court.
5. This appeal has been filed by the claimant against judgment dated 12.04.2010 and award signed on 20.04.2010 by the learned Additional District Judge – cum – Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, FTC – 1, Bokaro, in Title (M.V.) Suit No.63/2006. The appeal has been filed for enhancement of compensation.
6. The facts involved in this case are as under:
3
the Title (M.V.) Suit No. 63 of 2006 and a compensation amount of Rs. 2,00, 000/- with interest was claimed.
7. The counsel for the appellant submits that the claimant has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 40 percent as was evident from the disability certificate issued by the civil surgeon which related to rotational deformity of right forearm and mild stiffness of right shoulder. He submits that the claimant had also suffered disfigurement of his face. He submits that the award of compensation to the extent of Rs.1,60,200/- is insufficient considering the permanent disability suffered by the appellant. He also submits that the learned lower court had taken the disability only to the extent of 30 %. He submits that the awarded amount should have been much more.
8. Counsel for the respondent-Insurance company on the other hand submits that there was contributory negligence on the part of the appellant and accordingly, although the compensation was assessed to the extent of Rs.2,13,600/- but the claimant was entitled to the extent of 75 % only i.e., Rs.1,60,200/-. He further submits that the Doctor was not examined and although the certificate issued by civil surgeon indicated 40 % of disability, but there were certain other certificates also, which indicated much less disability. The
4
certificate of disablement issued by the civil surgeon had recommendation for re-assessment after one year. Admittedly, the claimant, did not have a driving license. He submits that the impugned judgment has been passed in accordance with law and hence it does not call for any interference.
9. He further submits that after considering the entire materials on record, the learned court below has taken the permanent disability of the appellant to the extent of 30 % and contributory negligence on behalf of the claimant to the extent of 25 % only although, admittedly the claimant was not having any driving license. The income of the claimant has been taken as Rs.3,000/- per month. Thereafter, the multiplier of 17 has been taken for assessing the total loss to the claimant and the compensation amount was assessed at Rs.2,13,600/- which was more than the claimed amount as the claimant had claimed only Rs. 2,00,000/-. Interest was also awarded to the claimant at the rate of 7.5 % from January, 2009 till payment of compensation amount of Rs.1,60,200/-.
10. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed:
i. “Is the suit Maintainable?
ii. Whether there is valid cause of action for the suit?
iii. Whether the applicant sustained bodily injury and developed disablement due to motor vehicle accident caused by the driver of vehicle No. H.R. 46 B -2236 on 20.2.04?
iv. Whether the offending vehicle was under Insurance coverage with defendant no.3 National Insurance Co. Ltd.?
v. Whether the applicant is entitled for compensation, if so to what extent and from whom?
vi. Whether the applicant is entitled to any other relief or reliefs?” 11. After hearing the counsel for the parties and after considering the materials on record, this Court finds that the only point for determination in this appeal is as to whether the
5
compensation has been rightly determined by the learned court below. Admittedly, the claimant was riding on a motor cycle which dashed with the truck and admittedly the claimant had no driving license. However, on account of collision between the truck and the motor cycle, the claimant suffered bodily injury and was also admitted to the hospital for treatment. 12. The claimant in his claim application had claimed compensation amount to the extent of Rs.2,00,000/- and upon notice, the parties had appeared. It was found that the truck was covered by the insurance issued by the insurance company namely National Insurance Company Limited. Considering the contributory negligence of the claimant, the insurance company was held liable only to the extent of 75 % of the compensation. 13. So far as assessment of income is concerned, the learned court below noticed the fact that there was no sufficient material to fully substantiate the income of the appellant, but the court had taken the income to the extent of Rs.3000/- per month. Thereafter, the lower court below considering 30 % disablement and assessed the loss of earning to the extent of Rs. 10,800/- per annum. As the appellant was aged about 24 to 25 years, a multiplier of 17 was applied and the total loss was assessed at Rs.1,83,600/- and considering the medical expenses, the total compensation amount was calculated to be Rs. 2,13,600/- which was certainly higher than what was claimed by the claimant himself. Out of the total amount, on account of contributory negligence on the part of the claimant, the insurance company was directed to pay compensation to the extent of 75 % only with interest @ 7.5 % from January, 2009 till payment. The total amount of compensation payable by the insurance company came to Rs. 1,60,200/- excluding interest. This Court does not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned judgment. The counsel for the appellant has not raised any such point calling for any interference in the impugned judgment on this point.
6
14. So far as the assessment of compensation is concerned, this Court finds that the leaned court below after considering the materials on record including the different certificates indicating disability and also the disability certificate issued by the civil surgeon, which had recommended for fresh assessment after one year, had found the disability to the extent of 30%. Considering the materials on record, the learned lower court below had taken disability to the extent of 30 %. This Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the said finding as there were different certificates showing different percentage of disability.
15. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court does not find any merits in this appeal in view of the aforesaid well-reasoned order duly compensating the appellant. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Saurav /
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the compensation assessed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is free from perversity or illegality requiring interference in revisional jurisdiction.
Whether the assessment of 30% permanent disability is unreasonable given the available medical certificates.
Tej Narain Hansda
Jitendra Singh
Saheb Singh
The National Insurance Co. Ltd.
ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
