Jharkhand High Court
National Insurance Company Ltd vs Bharati Das Gupta on 15 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No. 124 of 2016
-----
National Insurance Company Ltd.,
Palkote Road, Gumla .... Appellant(s)
Versus.
1. Bharati Das Gupta
2. Mr. Sailesh Kumar ... Respondent(s).
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING.
-----
For the appellant(s): Mr. Debvesh Ch. Ghosh, Advocate.
For respondent(s): M/s Birendra Kumar & Ravi Prakash, Advocates.
-----
08/15.03.2021: The lawyers have no objection with regard to the proceeding, which
has been held through video conferencing today at 11:00 A.M. They have no
complaint in respect of the audio and video clarity and quality.
2. Heard the counsel for the parties.
3. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated
22.7.2015 passed in MCA Case No. 50/2012 by the learned Principal District
Judge-cum-MACT, Gumla.
4. This is an appeal preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company.
The counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submits that the income of the
deceased was accepted by the Tribunal to be Rs.16,000/- per month. The
counsel for the appellant further submits that this is a case of injury and not the
case of death, as the death has taken place after two years of the accident. He
also submits that the Tribunal has considered the case to be that of injury and
has not considered the case of death and proceed accordingly. As per him, the
quantum is on the higher side.
5. The only challenge is in relation to the quantum of monthly income of
the injured. It is admitted case that the injured met with an accident on 15.1.2011
while he was walking. A car bearing registration No. JH-07A-1901 which was
driven rashly and negligently, dashed him, resulting in injury. He was treated in
Sadar Hospital, Gumla, Apollo Hospital, Ranchi and K.C. Roy Hospital, Ranchi
for several months. It is claimed that the injured lost his memory because of head
injury and he ultimately died on 6.2.2013 i.e. after two years of the accident. The
wife of the deceased had filed the claim petition. The injured, was a doctor and
aged about 68 years at the time of accident.
6. The Tribunal on the evidence on record, came to a conclusion that
Dr. Abhik Kumar Das Gupta met with an accident on 15.1.2011 and sustained
severe injury owing to rash and negligent driving of Car bearing registration No.
JH 07A-1901. The Tribunal also came to a finding on the basis of evidence that
there is nothing to suggest that the death of the deceased was due to the
accident. The Tribunal in view of the submission of A.W.6 found that the disability
was to the tune of 60% in the brain of the injured. The Tribunal on the basis of
the evidence also found that after the accident and after coming to senses the
injured was "just like a live dead body not able to identify anyone or even
unable to speak any meaningful words". The Tribunal also came to a
conclusion that the deceased had suffered loss of memory upto 60%. The
Tribunal also came to a conclusion that the accident had taken place due to rash
and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, which was duly insured.
7. So far as medical expenses of the deceased is concerned, the
Tribunal found from Exts.-4 and 5 that a total amount of Rs.3,19,019/- has been
spent towards medical treatment of the injured. Be it noted that the insurance
company has also not disputed the aforesaid quantum. The only question which
the insurance company has raised is about the income of the injured doctor. The
Tribunal after considering the evidences came to logical conclusion that the
injured was having a monthly income of Rs.16,000/- per month. From the record,
I find that the injured was a Doctor in Gumla Town and as per submission, he
was a leading practitioner. The Tribunal also found that no one denied that the
said Doctor Abhik Kumar Das Gupta was having a good medical practice. The
Tribunal, thus, has taken a rational view and has fixed Rs.16,000/- per month as
the income of the deceased. The contention of the Insurance Company that the
income of the person is Rs.3000/- per month cannot be accepted because of the
reason that a doctor, aged about 68 years, if privately practices in any corner of
the country, will definitely earn much more than Rs.3,000/- per month and even
may be more than Rs.16,000/- per month. Thus, the Tribunal, on the account of
loss of income, assessed the amount to be Rs.3,84,000/-, which is justified.
8. The medical expense was granted to the tune of Rs.3,19,019/-,
which is the actual amount spent, which has also not been disputed by the
Insurance Company. The Tribunal has also assessed Rs.25,000/- each towards
pain and suffering and loss of amenities of life. Thus, the total amount of
Rs.7,53,019/- has been awarded along with interest.
9. In view of the aforesaid facts, I find that the Tribunal after
considering all facts has arrived at a correct conclusion with regard to quantum of
compensation. Thus, I find no illegality in the impugned award. According this
miscellaneous appeal is dismissed.
10. However the Insurance Company is at liberty to withdraw the
statutory amount, which was deposited during filing of this appeal, as the amount
of compensation should be paid in entirety to the claimant(s).
Anu/-CP-2 (ANANDA SEN, J.)
