Allahabad High Court
Dharmendra Kumar Shukla vs Satish Kumar And 5 Others on 23 March, 2021
Bench: Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Ajit Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 21
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2224 of 2019
Appellant :- Dharmendra Kumar Shukla
Respondent :- Satish Kumar And 5 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Birendra Singh, Pradeepta Kumar Shahi
Counsel for Respondent :- Arun Kumar Shukla, Gopal Srivastava
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri Pradeepta Kumar Shahi, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Arun Kumar Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company and Sri Gopal Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents.
2. This appeal, at the behest of the injured-claimant challanges the judgment and award dated 16.05.2019 passed by the Additional District and Session Judge, Court No.5/Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Kanpur Nagar (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in Claim Petition No.1443 of 2014 awarding a sum of Rs.7,61,929/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 7%.
3. The accident is not in disute. The issue of negligence decided by the Tribunal is not in dispute. The respondent-Insurance company has not challenged the liability imposed on them. The only issue to be decided is, the quantum of compensation awarded.
4. The injured was 39 years of age at the time of accident. He was Head Master of the Primary School. He was initially admitted in Primary Health Centre, Hamirpur later on referred to Kanpur for further treatment. During the course of treatment both his lower limbs were amputated.
5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Tribunal has ignored the fact that on account of the accident, the appellant was made to suffer huge disability. He was a young teacher of 39 years of age was Head Master of the Primary School and lost both his lower limbs because of the accident. It is submitted that no amount under head of future economic loss of income has been granted. It is also submitted that the amount under the non-pecuniary heads and the interest awarded are also on the lower side and requires to be enhanced in view of the following authoritative pronouncements :
(i) Sanjay Kumar Vs. Ashok Kumar and another, (2014) 5 SCC.
(ii) Syed Sadiq and others Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, (2014) 2 SCC, 735;
(iii) V.Mekala Vs. M. Malathi and anothers, (2014) 11SCC, 178;
(iv) Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles (Eleventh Amendment) Rules, 2011.
(v) Hari Babu Vs. Amrit Lal and others, 2019(2) T.A.C., 718 (All.).
6. As against this, it is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that the quantum awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for any interference of this Court as the income which is not proved cannot be granted.
7. After hearing the counsels for the parties and perusing the judgment and order impugned, this Court feels that the Tribunal has erred in considering the loss of income of the injured claimant. Tribunal has granted what can be said to be medical expenses but refused to grant compensation for torturous act. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and another, reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343 and Syed Sadiq and others (Supra).
9. In view of the judgment of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar, 2011(1) T.A.C., 785 (SC) relied upon by the learned Tribunal, we remit back the matter to the learned Tribunal for deciding the matter afresh. Just because the appellant was serving person, it can not be said that he would not be entitled to any future loss of income for such a torturous act of the driver of the truck.
10. As the record is not before us, over and above Rs.7,61,929/-, which is also bad in the eyes of law for amputation of two feet award of Rs.5 lacs Rs.20,000/- for pain, shock and sufferings, Rs.7,31,929/- for medical expenses, Rs.5,000/- for special diet and Rs.5,000/- for attendant charges for past and future, all are unthinkable and unreasonable.
11. The appeal is remitted back to the learned Tribunal for deciding the loss and future loss of income of the injured because of the disability that he has sustained. It goes without saying that even in respect of injury caused to the appellant, he could be entitled to future loss of income in view of the recent decision of the Apex Court.
12. We set aside the judgment and remit back the matter to the Tribunal at Kanpur Nagar before whom the record is for deciding. The only aspect requires to be decided is quantum in the light of latest decision of the Apex Court which we have mentioned in paragraph no.5 and the later judgment of the 2020 with the Tribunal would look into and decide the quantum over and above the medical expenses.
13. With these observations, the appeal is partly allowed. As all the records are before the Tribunal, there is no need to record further finding. The learned Tribunal has not granted any amount under the head of loss of income and because according to the Tribunal as the appellant is serving person, there is no economic loss, this finding is erroneous. The matter be disposed of by 31.07.2021. The amount already deposited will be adjusted.
Order Date :- 23.3.2021
R./
