Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
M.A. No.100 of 2013 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI M.A. No.100 of 2013 ------ (Against the Award dated 04.02.2013 passed in Compensation Case No.127 of 2010 passed by District Judge-III-cum-Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur)
M. Manish Kumar, Son of Late M.G. Rao, resident of 36, Purulia Highway Road (SNP Area) Aam Bagan, P.O. & P.S. Sakchi, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum
………..Appellant-applicant Versus 1. Sri Ratan Singh, son of Ujagar Singh, resident of Main Road, Nimdih, P.O. & P.S. Nimdih, District-Seraikella-Kharsawan 2. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited having its Branch Office at Hindustan Building, Main Road, P.O. & P.S. Bistupur, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum. ……….. Opposite Parties/Respondents ------ For the Appellant : Mr. Kunal Rana Jr. to Mr. Ashok Kr. Yadav,
Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Ganesh C. Jha, Advocate ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court: - Heard the parties. 2. This appeal is preferred against the award dated 04.02.2013 passed by District Judge-III-cum-Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Compensation Case No.127 of 2010 by which in an application filed under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the appellant-applicant was awarded compensation amount of Rs.11,33,761/-to be paid by the Insurance Company-opposite party no.2 (respondent no.2 herein) within two months from the date of judgment failing which the opposite party no.2 (respondent no.2 herein) was directed to pay simple interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition in the case which involved 80 % disabilities caused to the appellant-applicant in a motor vehicle accident. 3. The brief facts of this case is that when the appellant-applicant was
M.A. No.100 of 2013 2
driving the motorcycle with his brother on the pillion, the crane being rashly and negligently driven towing a car dashed the motorcycle of the appellant- applicant as a result of which the appellant-applicant received injuries and was admitted to Tata Main Hospital and later on he was taken to Rabindranth Tagore International Institute of Cardiac Sciences, Kolkata and his right arm was amputated. 4. The learned Tribunal on the basis of rival pleadings framed altogether 8 issues and after considering the evidences put forth by the parties, the tribunal came to the conclusion that the appellant-applicant received injuries in the motorcycle accident and his right hand was amputated over elbow and thus answered issue no.2 in favour of the appellant-applicant. The learned Tribunal also came to a conclusion that the said offending crane was insured at the relevant time decided issue nos.3 & 4 in favour of appellant-applicant. Learned tribunal considered the issue nos.5, 6, 7 and 8 together and came to conclusion that from the evidence both oral and documents being Ext. A, Ext. B and Ext. X, it is evident that the vehicle was being driven against the policy and the valid licence was not possessed by the driver thus the opposite party no.2-respondent no.2- The Oriental Insurance Company is entitled to recover the compensation amount to be paid by it to the claimants from the owner of the offending vehicle. 5. Mr. Kunal Rana, J.C. to Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant-applicant submits that the learned court below failed to appreciate the evidence on record properly and the learned tribunal ought to have assessed the income of the appellant-applicant to be Rs.12,000/- per month instead of Rs.4,500/- per month. It is further submitted that learned tribunal has failed to appreciate that the certificate issued by the employer of the appellant-applicant wherein it has been mentioned that the appellant- applicant was contractual employee of the firm and drawing salary to the tune of Rs.12,000/- per month. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant-applicant relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Pappu Deo Yadav Vs. Naresh Kumar and Ors. reported in (2020) SCC Online SC 752, para 21 of which read as under: “21. This court is also of the opinion that the courts below needlessly discounted the evidence presented by the appellant in respect of the income earned by him. Working in the informal sector as he did, i.e. as a typist/data
M.A. No.100 of 2013 3
entry operator in court premises in Delhi, his assertion about earning Rs. 12,000/- could not be discarded substantially, to the extent of bringing it down to Rs. 8,000/- per month. Such self employed professionals, it is noticeable, were not obliged to file income tax returns for AY 2011-2012, when no levy existed for anyone earning less than Rs. 1,60,000/- per annum. The advocate who deposed about the earnings of the appellant was believed to the extent that the tribunal fixed the appellant's monthly earnings at Rs. 8,000/-. If one takes into account contemporary minimum wages for skilled workers (which was in the range of Rs. 8,500/-) the realistic figure would be Rs. 10,000/- per month. Adding future prospects at 40%, the income should be taken as Rs. 14,000 for the purpose of calculation of compensation. Accordingly, this court finds that the compensation payable for the disability of loss of an arm (assessed at 65%) would be Rs. 19,65,600/- (i.e., Rs. 14,000/- × 12 × 65% × 18) or Rupees Nineteen lakhs sixty five thousand six hundred only.”
And submits that learned tribunal ought to have added 40% towards future prospects to the income of the applicant/appellant since the age of the appellant-applicant is 31 years at the time of accident. Hence, it is submitted that the impugned award be modified accordingly. 7. Mr. G.C. Jha, learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand defends the impugned award and submits that the learned tribunal has rightly disbelieved the salary certificate issued by the employer because the employer could not produce any document to substantiate his claim that the appellant-applicant was his employee. Hence, this appeal being without any merit be dismissed. 8. Having heard the submissions made at the bar and after going through the materials in the record following 2 points for determination crop up in this appeal for consideration: (i) Whether the tribunal appreciated the evidence in the record properly? (ii) What amount of compensation the claimant is entitled to? 9. So far the first point for determination is concerned, perusal of the record reveals that in this appeal the claimant altogether examined three witnesses and the appellant-applicant himself has been examined as A.W.1 and he has stated that, he worked in M/s Vishal Sales as an accountant and drawing salary of Rs.12,000/- per month and he was having 80 % disability. A.W.2-Prasanth Rao who was the pillion rider of the motorcycle at the time of accident, supported the case of the appellant-applicant and stated that the appellant-applicant was the employee of the M/s Vishal Sales and drawing salary of Rs.12,000/- per month . A.W.3 Amit Goyal who was the employer of
M.A. No.100 of 2013 4
the appellant-applicant and he stated that he used to give salary of Rs.12,000/- per month to the applicant/appellant. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he used to file return showing the numbers of the employees engaged by him and how much salaries being drawn by them and he can also file the return in the court but he is not paying P.F. nor any housing allowance to the appellant-applicant and the appellant-applicant was not getting any T.A. or D.A. The learned Tribunal considered that no income tax return or bank pass book could be shown by the employer of the appellant-applicant to show his income and assessed the monthly income of the victim to be of Rs.4,500/- per month but this Court considering the facts that the appellant-applicant was an accountant in a private firm and the accident occurred on 18.06.2010 is of the considered view that the assessment of the income by the tribunal is not proper and is on the lower side. This court considering the facts of the case assess the income of the appellant-applicant to be Rs.6,000/- per month.The first point for determination is answered accordingly. 10. So far the second point for determination is concerned, in view of the settled principle of law in the case of National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680 as well as in the case of Pappu Deo Yadav Vs. Naresh Kumar and Ors. (Supra), considering the age of the appellant-applicant was below 40 years at the time of accident, a future prospect of 40% has to be added in the monthly income. Accordingly, his monthly income including the future prospects comes out to be Rs. 8,400/- per month i.e., Rs.6,000 + Rs.2,400 and his annual income including future prospects comes to Rs.1,00,800/- but as he was having 80 % disabilities, it shows the loss of income concerned comes out to Rs.80,640/- (Rs.8,400 x 12 x 0.8) per annum. Keeping in view that the appellant-applicant was aged 31 years 8 months and 26 days at the date of occurrence, the multiplier of 16 would be proper as has been laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Vs Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. Thus the total compensation comes out of Rs.12,90,240/- (Rs.80,640 x 16) and by further adding the medical cost and other incidental charges of Rs.4,02,561/- and Rs.40,000/- towards loss of amenities of life, pain and suffering and attendant charges the total compensation amount comes out to be Rs.17,32,801/- (Rs.12,90,240 +
M.A. No.100 of 2013 5
Rs.4,02,561 + Rs.40,000). In the considered view of this court the claimant is entitled to Rs.17,32,801/- as compensation Hence, the second point for determination is answered accordingly. 11. In view of the discussion made above, impugned award is modified by directing the respondent-opposite party no.2-Oriental Insurance Company Limited to pay the Rs.17,32,801/- less the amount already paid by the respondent-opposite party No.2- Oriental Insurance Company Limited in terms of the impugned award passed by the learned tribunal, if any, with interest @ 6 % on the said amount of Rs.17,32,801/- less the amount already paid by the respondent-opposite party No.2- Oriental Insurance Company Limited in terms of the impugned award passed by the learned tribunal, if any, from the date of this judgment till the date of actual payment within three months from the date of this judgment and the Insurance Company will have right to recover the amount paid by it from the owner of the offending vehicle as ordered in the impugned award. 12. The Award dated 04.02.2013 passed by District Judge-III-cum-Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Compensation Case No.127 of 2010 is modified to the aforesaid extent only. 13. This appeal is disposed of accordingly. 14. No order as to costs. 15. Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned court below forthwith.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 8th of June, 2022. AFR/ Pappu