Jharkhand High Court
Gurmeet Kaur Wife Of Late Pyara ... vs Jiyalal Sahu on 30 June, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No. 421 of 2016
-----
Gurmeet Kaur wife of Late Pyara Singh, resident of Aamaghata (Radha Swami
Satsang Vayas), P.O- K.G. Ashram, P.S. Govindpur, District- Dhanbad.
.... Appellant(s).
Versus
1. Jiyalal Sahu, son of Sheo Bilash Prasad, resident of village Madhuban-
Shikarjee, P.O. and P.S. Giridih, District- Giridih [Owner of Tata-Sumo (Spacio)
No. BR 23B-8430]
2. M/s United India Insurance Company Limited through its Divisional Manager,
Division Office at Rathore Mansion, Bank More, P.O. -Dhanbad, P.S. Bank More,
District-Dhanbad [Insurer of Tata Sumo (Spacio) No. BR 23B-8430]
..... ... Respondent(s)
------
PRESENT : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.
Through: Video Conferencing
------
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajiv Karan, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. H.K. Singh, Advocate.
------
JUDGMENT
Reserved on: 23.06.2021 Pronounced on: 30/6/2021
Heard the learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing.
They had no complaint in respect of the audio and video clarity and quality.
2. In this appeal, filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988,
the appellant has prayed for enhancement of her claim challenging the Judgment
dated 28th May, 2016 passed by Sri Ravindra Kumar, the learned District Judge,
XIV-cum-MACT at Dhanbad in Title (M.V.) Case No. 09/2005.
3. The fact of the case is that while the appellant was traveling with her
family in TATA Sumo (Spacio) bearing registration No. BR 23B 8430 on 18.6.2004
and they reached near Belgram village on G.T. Road, Galsi District- Burdwan at
about 9:00 p.m. driver of the said vehicle in order to overtake a truck in a very rash
and negligent manner plunged the vehicle into a ditch causing the vehicle to turn
turtle and the appellant and her husband sustained serious multiple injuries. Pyara
Singh, the husband of the appellant succumbed to his injuries on 10.7.2004 in
Bokaro Central Hospital, whereas the appellant was admitted in Central Hospital,
Dhanbad, for which, an FIR being Galsi P.S. Case No. 144 of 2004 has been lodged
by the son of the appellant for the offence under Sections 279/304 A IPC. The
appellant was treated for the said injuries at Central Hospital, Dhanbad for 09 days
in which, Rs.50,000/- had incurred for the treatment till the filing of the case.
Handicap certificate has already been issued by the Civil Surgeon-cum-CMO,
Dhanbad. Thus, on the said ground, the appellant has prayed for grant of
compensation of rupees five lakhs together with interest @ 9% per annum along
with cost of the suit filed under Section 166 of the M.V Act. The appellant has also
prayed for an interim compensation of Rs.25,000/- during the pendency of the suit
under Section 140 of the M.V. Act.
4. Counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment impugned is illegal,
arbitrary and against the settled principle of law as victim/claimant sustained serious
injury i.e. permanent disablement of 40% but only meager amount i.e. Rs.75,000/-
has been granted under the Motor Vehicle Act. He further submits that the oral
evidences have fully supported the case of the appellant. He further submits that the
husband of the appellant died in the accident and the appellant-claimant remained in
hospital several days for her treatment.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 - M/s United India Insurance
Company Limited after going through the counter-affidavit, filed on behalf of
Insurance Company, submits that the court below has rightly passed the impugned
judgment dated 28.5.2016 after going through the evidences and materials available
on record. He further submits that the vehicle was insured with M/s United India
Insurance Company Limited. He also submits that as per the statement of the
appellant, in course of her journey, she herself admitted that she had received minor
injury in the accident, which occurred due to sole negligence of the driver of the
truck and not of the Tata Sumo and thus the insurance company may be protected
under Sections 147 and 149 of the Motor Vehicle Act. He, relying upon the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd,
Simla Vs. Tilak Singh and Others reported in (2006) 0 ACJ 1441, submits that the
said TATA Sumo was insured as a private vehicle and was being used as
commercial vehicle carrying passengers and as such, the appellant is not authorized
to claim compensation from the Insurance Company. Counsel for the Insurance
Company further submits that the court below, while passing the impugned
judgment, has rightly taken into consideration the judgment passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar, reported in
(2011) 1 SCC 343, in which it has been observed that only the serious injury with
supporting medical evidence are to be taken into consideration. He also submits that
the appellant herself admitted that during course of her journey she had not received
grievous injury and therefore no question arises with regard to permanent disability
certificate of 40%.
6. This is a case of injury. The appellant has prayed for enhancement of
compensation. Counsel for the appellant submits that since the disability is of 40%,
the compensation should be granted to the appellant at the higher rate. He further
submits that the Tribunal has granted only Rs.75,000/- in favour of the appellant,
rather the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- should have been awarded.
7. After hearing the parties and after going through the lower court record,
as held earlier, I find that this is a case of injury. The appellant is a house wife. She
heavily relied upon the disability certificate in which, her disability has been
assessed at 40%. If a person is 40% disabled and this disability occurs due to an
accident, there should be some corresponding document to suggest as to what are
the injury which the person has sustained. To assess this fact, I have perused the
entire lower court record.
8. The claimant-appellant in her examination-in-chief, has stated that her
left hand was severely damaged and 1/2 inch of her earlobe got detached. The
hospital report and other medical documents are on record. Those documents are
exhibited as Exhibits 1-series and 2- series.
9. I have gone through the receipts as well as medical documents. After
going through Ext.-1/2, I find that the same is a bill in respect of hospital charge,
wherein fees have been charged for X-ray, CT Scan and pathology tests. Hospital
charge is of Rs.1530/- from 19.6.2004 to 28.6.2004 and Rs. 75/- is for consultation
fees. There is no document to suggest that the appellant sustained any grievous
injury, which resulted 40% disability. There is another document, which is Ext.2. The
said document is dated 27.5.2005 i.e. after one year of the accident. This document
also relates to some scan report as well as head trauma, arising out of the accident.
In this report also there is nothing to suggest that the appellant suffered grievous
injury.
10. In this case, I find that on behalf of the claimant, four witnesses have
been examined; P.W.-1 is the appellant herself, P.W.2- is the son of the appellant,
P.W.-3 is also one of the sons of the appellant and P.W.-4 is the co-passenger. Ext.6
is the disability certificate. When I go through the disability certificate, I find that the
disability has been assessed at 40%. None of the persons, who have granted the
said disability certificate, has been produced as witness. On what basis, it has been
assessed that the disability is of 40%, is also not known and the same has not been
mentioned anywhere. As mentioned earlier, none of the evidences suggest that the
injury sustained by the appellant was grievous in nature. Thus, this Court cannot
give much credence on the disability certificate.
11. While I go through the impugned award, I find that the Tribunal has
rightly assessed the compensation. There is no material in support of the claim of
the claimant, save and except facts of the accident and some medical documents,
which do not suggest that the claimant-appellant had sustained grievous injury,
which resulted in her disability to the tune of 40%.
12. Considering the aforesaid facts, I find that there is no illegality in the
impugned judgment. Accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed.
(ANANDA SEN, J.)
NAFR-Anu/-
