Mrs. Suman Agrawal vs Uma Shankar Singh And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 2945 Jhar

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
             (Civil Miscellaneous Appellate Jurisdiction)
                    M.A. No. 293 of 2019
                              ........

Mrs. Suman Agrawal                         ...... ..... Appellant
                             Versus
Uma Shankar Singh and Anr.                ......    ...... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO (Through : Video Conferencing) ............

For the Appellant : Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall, Advocate. For the Respondent No.2 : Ms. Amrita Banerjee, Advocate.

........

05/17.08.2021 Heard, learned counsel for the claimant / appellant, Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall and learned counsel for the respondent No.2-National Insurance Company, Ms. Amrita Banerjee.

The claimant / appellant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of the award dated 30.03.2019 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranchi in Motor Accident Claim Case No.87/2015.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that though appellant has suffered grievous injury, due to which her two ribs of chest in left side, collar bone, left shoulder, elbow and left wrist got fractured and also sustained severe injuries in her waist in left side, she became unconscious and referred to Sadar Hospital, Hazaribagh for treatment and from there she was further referred to RIMS, Ranchi where X-ray was done and it was disclosed that her ribs her chest got fractured, thereafter, on the same day she was shifted to Ashirwad Hospital & Research Centre, Ranchi for better treatment from where she was discharged on 14.03.2015, but the learned Tribunal while computing the compensation has granted less amount under pain and suffering, as such, this Court may consider the same and enhance the compensation.

Learned counsel for the National Insurance Company, Ms. Amrita Benerjee has submitted that admittedly it is not a case of permanent disability, rather it is a case of injury 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, as such, the claimant / appellant is only entitled for pecuniary damages under (i) expenses relating to

treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food and miscellaneous expenditure, (ii) loss of earning (and other gains), which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising: (a) loss of earning during the period of treatment and non pecuniary damages (General damages) under (iv) damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries in view of paragraph-6 of the judgment.

Learned counsel for the National Insurance Company has further submitted that since the victim/injured was a Government servant, as such, loss of earning during that period has been taken care by the department and there was no deduction in her salary, rather the same has been given by the State and the victim / injured has not suffered loss.

So far expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization and medicines are concerned, as per the documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal has granted Rs.11,709/- under medical expenses and the appellant has no case before this court of appeal on the ground that the documents with regard to treatment has not been appreciated by the learned Tribunal.

So far, transportation charges is concerned, this Court has also granted transportation charges in such type of accident to the tune of Rs.5,000/-, as such, learned Tribunal has rightly granted the transportation charges as Rs.5,000/- and this Court may not interfere the same.

So far, expenses under nourishing food is concerned, as the injured remained hospitalized for ten days, the learned Tribunal has granted Rs.5,000/- under special diet and under the miscellaneous expenditure for attendant charges the learned Tribunal has granted Rs.5,000/-.

So far non-pecuniary damages under (iv) i.e., damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries is concerned, the learned Tribunal has considered the same and has granted Rs.25,000/-, as such, there is no illegality in the impugned award, rather the interest has been granted @ 9% per annum from the date of admission of the

claim application contrary to the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Dharampal and Sons Vs. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation reported in (2008) 12 SCC 208, whereby the interest ought to have been granted @ 7.5%, as such, this Court may not interfere with the same.

Considering the rival submissions of the parties, looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, since no illegality has been committed by the learned Tribunal in granting compensation as claimant has failed to establish that she has suffered any permanent disability and the learned Tribunal followed the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Others (supra), as such, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same.

Accordingly, the instant Miscellaneous Appeal preferred by the injured / claimant / appellant being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed.

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) Jay/Tarun