Santosh Kumar vs Prayag Yadav & Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 2913 Jhar

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
           (Civil Miscellaneous Appellate Jurisdiction)
                  M.A. No. 324 of 2018
                           ........

Santosh Kumar                               .... ..... Appellant
                             Versus
Prayag Yadav & Another                      .... ..... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO
            (Through : Video Conferencing)
                                    ............
For the Appellant                     : Mr. Vijay Kumar Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondent No.1               : Mr. Rajesh Kr. Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent No.2               : Mr. G. C. Jha, Advocate
                                    ........
08/16.08.2021.

Heard, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Vijay Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No.1, Mr. Rajesh Kr. Singh and learned counsel for the respondent No.2, Mr. G. C. Jha.

The injured/claimant, Santosh Kumar has preferred this appeal for enhancement of the award dated 26.03.2018 passed by learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal-cum-District Judge-IV, Chatra in Motor Accident Claim Case No.09/2012, whereby the claimant has been awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.83,103/- along with simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application i.e. 10.01.2012 till the date of actual indemnifying the award.

Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned award on the ground that the payment, which has been made for two operations done by Dr. S. N. Yadav, Orthopedics, Ranchi to the tune of Rs.1,20,000/- has not been considered by the learned Tribunal, as such, this Court may call for the lower court records.

Learned counsel for the United India Insurance Company, Mr. G. C. Jha has serious objection and has submitted that as per the claim application, the accident took place on 23.10.2009. The disablement certificate, which has been brought on record as Exhibit-4 dated 06.06.2017, is subsequent to the filing of the claim application in the year 2012. The learned Tribunal has rightly appreciated Exhibit-2, Exhibit-3 series and Exhibit-4 and found it to be not a case of permanent disability and has awarded entire amount of bill and as per record, the appellant only remained in hospitalization for two days. No bill or voucher has been submitted before the learned Tribunal with regard to two operations

conducted by Dr. S. N. Yadav, Orthopedics, Ranchi showing payment of Rs.1,20,000/-, as such, the learned Tribunal has also considered this aspect of the matter at paragraph-10 in page -7 of the impugned award holding that the claimant has produced medical certificate dated 06.06.2017 issued by the Chief Medical Officer, Sadar Hospital, Chatra. The Medical Board has given his opinion regarding 30% disability of Santosh Kumar, S/o Sri Lakshmi Narayan Prasad, but on behalf of the claimant neither in his claim petition nor in his evidence, it has been mentioned that due to accident, which took place on 20.10.2009, he become permanent disable. He has failed to prove the proximity of the accident with the documents.

The learned Tribunal has further held that now days such type of tendency being developed in the people to get more and more compensation any how by such medical certificate. Being a tribunal it is duty to deprecate such type of the increasing tendencies only to get more and more compensation in accident cases, as such, this appeal may be dismissed with cost.

Considering the rival submissions of the parties, looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, even before the appellate court the claimant/appellant has not prayed about his permanent disability, as such, in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Others reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343, the claimant / appellant is only entitled for (i) expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food and miscellaneous expenditure, (ii) loss of earning, which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising: (a) loss of earning during the period of treatment and (iv) damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. As per the documentary evidence, compensation has been awarded by the learned Tribunal and as such, this Court, in absence of any specific pleading or document brought on record, is not inclined to interfere with the same.

Accordingly, the instant Miscellaneous Appeal is hereby dismissed.

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) Sunil-Jay/-