Allahabad High Court
Satyendra Kumar vs Smt.Usha Tiwari And Ors. on 12 November, 2024
Author: Rajnish Kumar
Bench: Rajnish Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:74596
Court No. - 4
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 865 of 2015
Appellant :- Satyendra Kumar
Respondent :- Smt.Usha Tiwari And Ors.
Counsel for Appellant :- Rajeev Kumar Sinha
Counsel for Respondent :- Arjun Singh Somvanshi,Miss Alka Saxena,Pradeep Kumar Rai
Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.
1. Heard, Sri Rajeev Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Avadhesh Kumar,Advocate holding brief of Sri Arjun Singh Somvanshi, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2 and Sri Pradeep Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the respondent no.5. None appeared on behalf of the respondent nos.3 and 4 even in the revised list.
2. This appeal has been filed for enhancement of compensation awarded by means of the judgment and award dated 14.07.2015 by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/Additional District Judge,Court No.4, Hardoi in Claim Petition No.203/2013(Satyendra Kumar versus Usha Tiwari and others),by means of which the expenses incurred on the treatment of the appellant have been awarded.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that on account of accident, the appellant had become 50% disable and as per the disability certificate, his disability was required to be reviewed after 5 years, therefore considering the same, the compensation should have been awarded. Therefore the submission is that the impugned judgment and award is liable to be modified and the compensation is required to be awarded considering the aforesaid.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent nos.1,2 and 5 submit that the contesting respondent is respondent no.3. However, the appellant has failed to show any loss of income on account of accident and he admitted that he was doing his agricultural work on his own and he had also come on his own feet to give the evidence , therefore, there was no loss of income. Therefore the tribunal has rightly and in accordance with law allowed the expenditure made on treatment and there is no illegality or error in the impugned judgement and award.
5. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the records.
6. The claim petition was filed alleging therein that the appellant was going on his motor cycle having registration No. UP 30 R-2376 on 18.10.2012 from Hardoi to Bilgram, when at about 5:00 in the evening near village Puseda, a Xylo car having registration No.U.P.30 L-5556,being driven rashly and negligently by it's driver came from the Bilgram side and hit his motor cycle, in which he suffered serious injuries. The appellant was taken to the district hospital, Hardoi, from where he was referred to trauma centre Lucknow. His leg was fractured from two places. The appellant remain admitted in the hospital from 19.10.2012 to 02.11.2012 and after the operation, a rod was placed in his leg and his treatment is still going on and he is handicapped. The F.I.R. of the accident was lodged. The appellant had become handicapped, therefore, he is not able to walk and accordingly claimed compensation.The claim petition was contested by the respondents denying the averments made in the claim petition. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, 8 issues were framed. Thereafter the oral as well as the documentary evidence was adduced by the parties.
7. After considering the pleadings, evidence and material on record,the tribunal has recorded a finding that the accident on account of rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle has been proved. While considering the issue of compensation, which may be awarded to the appellant,the tribunal found that the disability certificate has been filed as paper no.29Kha/3, in which the appellant has been shown 50% disable and he has been called for re-assessment after 5 years. A.P.W.-3 Dr. Ambuj Singh was examined, who stated that the disability of the appellant is 50% and signatures of other doctors named by him are also on the same. In the cross -examination, he stated that the disability of the appellant is temporary and if proper treatment is taken, it can be rectified. The appellant appeared as A.P.W.1. He stated that he has come on his own feet to the court. He is doing agricultural work on his own. He has no animals. A.P.W.2-Ramakant has also admitted in his cross-examination that the appellant is doing his agricultural work on his own. Though the appellant had admitted that his disability certificate has neither been made nor placed on record,however, subsequently it was got made in the tehsil diwas and placed on record. The same was also proved by adducing evidence of a doctor. However, the doctor has not proved his identity by showing his identity card. The tribunal found that the disability of the appellant is temporary, therefore, he is not entitled for any compensation on this ground and the expenses etc. incurred on the treatment can be awarded and accordingly awarded the same.
8. So far as the loss of income is concerned, perusal of the evidence adduced by the appellant indicates that the appellant has not proved his income.In the evidence he has not stated that there was any loss of income on account of the accident, rather he has admitted that he is doing his agricultural work himself, therefore, this Court is of the view that the appellant has failed to show any loss of income, even for the period of treatment, therefore the tribunal has rightly awarded the amount as the disability was temporary and the appellant has failed to indicate that on account of the said disability, he was unable to work or he had any loss of income.
9. The appeal has been filed on misconceived and baseless grounds.
10. The appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 12.11.2024
Akanksha Sri.
