Abdul Sobhan Alias Subhan Ansari Alias Bhuttu Alias Abdul Sobhan Ansari Vs Babban Singh and Anr.

2025:JHHC:27703

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Misc. Appeal No.158 of 2014 Abdul Sobhan @ Subhan Ansari @ Bhuttu @ Abdul Sonhan Ansari, son of Late Samaun Miyan @ Sikandar Ansari @ Samaun Ansari, resident of Village Hathkathi, P.O. and P.S. Hiranpur, District Pakur .... .... …. (Jharkhand) Appellant

¶3

Versus

¶4

Babban Singh, son of Late Sriram Singh, residing of Village Singh Colony,

¶5

Aamrapara, P.O. and P.S. Aamrapara, District Pakur (Jharkhand)

¶6

Branch Manager, Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited, 6A Middleton Street, III Floor, P.S. Barabazar, P.O. Kolkata, ....

¶7

District 24 Parganas (West Bengal) .... .... Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶9

For the Appellants : Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall, Advocate Ms. D. Arati Kumari, Advocate Mr. Shivam Lath, Advocate Mr. Shivam Singh Kashyap, Advocate

¶10

For the Respondent No.2 : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, Advocate

¶11

Order No.15 / Dated : 10.09.2025

¶12

Claimant is in appeal for enhancement of compensation of Rs.3,00,800/- under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act in MACT Case No.162/2011 for the permanent disability suffered by him in a motor vehicle accident involving bus bearing registration no. JH 04A 1501.

¶13

As per the finding recorded by the learned trial court, appellant/claimant sustained 60% disablement in the motor vehicle accident by the offending bus referred to above resulting in amputation of one of his hands.

¶14

Learned trial court recorded a finding that he was a mason and was earning Rs.250/- per day on the date of accident which took place on 17.05.2010 and was aged 48 years at the time of accident.

¶15

It is submitted by the learned counsel that 60% disablement for a mason was 100% functional disablement. The Tribunal however awarded the compensation only for 60% and no compensation has been awarded under the heading of future loss of income. Further, the income of the claimant as deposed by the witnesses was Rs.7000/- per

¶16

1

¶17

2025:JHHC:27703

¶18

month. However, the income of Rs.3000/- per month was only accepted.

¶19

Two folds argument have been advanced in this regard on behalf of the appellant. Firstly, it is not in accord with the oral evidence or the minimum wages admissible to a skilled labor and further no interest has been awarded in the present case.

¶20

It is submitted by learned counsel on behalf of Insurance Company that it is a case of amputation of left hand; therefore, the plea of 100% functional disability is somewhat exaggerated. Further, P.W.-3 in the cross-examination at para 1 has deposed that injured was getting Rs. 200/- to Rs. 250/- per day and therefore, he had a fluctuating income.

¶21

Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides and on perusal of the materials on record, I find some merit in the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner that income of Rs. 3000/- of a Mason per month is not sustainable for the reason that he was a skilled labour and had claimed that he was earning Rs. 250/per day as per the deposition of the witnesses. Even if the minimum wage of a semi-skilled labour i.e., Rs. 200/- per day is taken as the daily wage of the injured, the monthly income will be Rs.6000/-. Further amputation of hand of a Mason and that too from the shoulder is something which cannot be said to incur less than 75% of functional disability. Taking the age of 48 years of the injured, Rs. 6000/- per month, 75% as the functional disability, the final compensation amount will come as under:

¶22

Annual Income	Rs.72,000/-
Future prospect @ 25% i.e., Rs.18000/-	Total=Rs.90,000/-
On taking a multiplier of 13 as	Rs.11,70,000/-
the injured was 48years old
Functional disability75%	Rs. 8,77,500/-
Total	Rs. 8,77,500/-

¶23

The claimants shall therefore be entitled to compensation of Rs.

¶24

2

¶25

2025:JHHC:27703

¶26

8,77,500/- with interest @ of 7.5% per annum on the compensation amount from the date of filing of claim application from the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company is accordingly directed to make payment of the compensation amount to the Tribunal within a month of this order. The Tribunal shall pay the compensation amount to the claimants after proper identification.

¶27

Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly allowed.

¶28

Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.

¶29

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶30

Pawan

¶31

3

Abdul Sobhan Alias Subhan Ansari Alias Bhuttu Alias Abdul Sobhan Ansari v. Babban Singh and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Sobhan Alias Subhan Ansari Alias Bhuttu Alias Abdul Sobhan Ansari v. Babban Singh and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Umesh Kumar Roy Alias Umesh Prasad Roy Vs Masomat Yashoda and Ors.

The Divisional Manager the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. through Its Sr Divisional Manager Vs MD Mustafa Ansari Alias MD Mustafa and Anr.

Ms Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. through Its Senior Divisional Manager Vs Mosomat Yashoda and Ors.

Seneth Munda Vs Rajesh Kachhap

Indra Narayan Singh Vs Pushpa Devi and Ors.

Ganesh Chand Lal Choudhary Vs the State of Jharkhand