Dismissed¶23

Kaleshwar Oraon v. Md Imtiyaz And Ors.

Jharkhand HC4 Mar 2025MA/500/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Enhancement of motor accident compensation; Section 166 M.V. Act 1988; Compensation Case No. 50 of 2010; permanent disability 45%; motorcycle-truck accident BR42G-7347 vs BR42-2302; no loss of occupation; pecuniary loss not proved; compensation on evidence not conjecture and surmises; pain and suffering and treatment heads already allowed; Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.; Lohardaga; Tribunal award upheld; miscellaneous appeal dismissed; Jharkhand High Court; Gautam Kumar Choudhary J; 04.03.2025.

What did the court decide?

The award already included compensation under the heads of pain and suffering/trauma consequent to the injuries and expenses relating to treatment. ¶22

Kaleshwar Oraon Vs Md Imtiyaz And Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Jharkhand HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI M.A. No. 500 of 2016

¶2

Kaleshwar Oraon, S/o Late Sukra Oraon. R/o Village-Nadia, P.O. & P.S.Lohardaga, District-Lohardaga

¶3

.... .... Appellant Versus

¶4

Md. Imtiyaz, S/o Md. Idrish, R/o Mohalla-Amla Toli, P.O. & P.S.-Lohardaga, District-Lohardaga

¶5

Mustakim Ansari, S/o Rahim Ansari, R/o Village-Hisri, P.O. & P.S.-Kisko, District-Lohardaga

¶6

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., P.B. no. 7037, A 25/27, Asaf Ali Road, P.S. Asaf Ali Road, At and Post New Delhi-110002, also at Lohardaga, through Branch Manager C/o Hotel Novelty Palmerganj Chowk, Lohardaga, P.N. Code-835302, P.O., P.S. & District-Lohardaga.

¶7

Salman Ansari, S/o Kabir Ansari, r/o Village Churmunda, Post-Arahansa, P.S. Netarhat, District-Latehar (Jharkhand)

¶8

… …. Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶10

For the Appellant : Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall, Advocate, For the Ins. Comp. : Mr. G. C. Jha, Advocate

¶11

------

¶12

Order No. 13 / Dated : 04.03.2025.

¶13

Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

¶14

Claimant is in appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded in Compensation Case No. 50 of 2010 under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, 1988 for physical disability, whereby a compensation of Rs. 75,000/along with interest @6% per annum has been awarded in favour of the claimant.

¶15

As per the case of the claimant, he suffered permanent disability to the extent of 45% in a motorcycle accident involving a truck bearing registration no. BR42G-7347 when the claimant’s vehicle bearing registration no. BR42-2302 was dashed by the offending vehicle.

¶16

Claimant was aged 37 years and was a driver under state service with the monthly income of Rs. 6,000/- from service and Rs. 3,600/- as his agricultural income.

¶17

This instant appeal has been preferred on the ground that as a result of permanent disability the claimant has suffered post traumatic stiffness with fixed flexion deformity at right hip and right knee joint with shortening right lower infirmity physical impairment in relation to his loco motor system.

¶18

Learned Tribunal has not considered the agricultural income of the

¶19

¶20

injured while computing the compensation amount and further only meagre amount has been allowed under different heads. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellant that due to the accident, he has suffered mental pain and agony and is deprived of enjoyment of life in its fullness.

¶21

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance-Company submits that claimant has been examined as C.W.1, and he has admitted in para 19, that there was no loss of occupation and he was still driving the vehicle (Bolero) of state department. Wife of claimant (Sitamani Oraon) has also deposed to the same effect, that at present her husband was still in the occupation of driving vehicle after the accident.

¶22

On perusal of the award, it is evident that compensation has been allowed under the head of, pain sufferings and trauma as a consequence of the injuries; and expenses relating to treatment etc. As the claimant did not suffer any pecuniary loss, as he continued in the service, therefore no award of compensation was made under this head. In any Case the compensation is to be made on the basis of evidence and cannot be allowed only on conjecture and surmises. The claimant failed to adduce evidence regarding any pecuniary loss suffered, therefore I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order.

¶23

Miscellaneous Appeal accordingly stands dismissed.

¶24

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

¶25

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶26

Pawan/ -

¶27

Kaleshwar Oraon v. Md Imtiyaz And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kaleshwar Oraon v. Md Imtiyaz And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.O., Kankanee Colliery Under Vs Meena Devi

Jwala Prasad Tiwari AndORS Vs Tetar Chamar And Ors.

Kamla Rani Singharay Alias Kamla Devi And Anr. Vs Ms Prakash Construction Co. And Anr.

Mrs Karuna Devi Vs Mr Asso Paul

Budhmani Kumari Vs Smt Riso Devi and Anr.

The Branch Manager the New India Assurance Company Limited Reprr through Its Divisional Office No I Vs Mostt Shushila Kunwar and Ors.