Jharkhand High Court
Sultan Singh vs Pankaj Singhal on 7 December, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No. 504 of 2015
Sultan Singh, son of Sube Singh, resident of 2nd Floor,
Pappu Complex, Hem Singh Bagan Area, New Kalimati
Road, Sakchi, P.O. & P.S. Golmuri, Town Jamshedpur,
District East Singhbhum.
.... Claimant / Appellant
-VERSUS-
1. Pankaj Singhal, son of Suresh Kumar Singhal, resident of 133/325,
T.P. Nagar, P.O. & P.S. Transport Nagar, Dist. Kanpur.
2. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office at Hindustan Building,
Main Road, Bistupur, P.O. & P.S. Bistupur, town Jamshedpur, District East
Singhbhum.
...Respondents/ Opposite parties
CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK
For the Appellant : Ms. Swati Shalini, Advocate.
For the Resp. : Mr. G.C. Jha, Advocate
Mr. D.K. Chakraverty, Advocate
----------
12/ 07.12.2022 Heard the parties.
2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the
Award/ Judgment dated 16.07.2015, passed by learned District Judge-III-
cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jamshedpur in Compensation Case
No. 37 of 2013, whereby a meagre compensation of Rs.2,31,000 with
interest has been awarded in favour of the appellants. In the instant
appeal, the claimant-appellant prays for enhancement of compensation
amount along with interest.
3. As per the factual matrix, on 18.11.2021, the injured, Sultan
Singh was going to Jamshedpur from Chandil by his motorcycle. When
he reached near T.C.I. Godown at Asanbani on NH-33, a truck bearing
Reg. No. UP-78BT-4741, coming from Chandil side dashed him from
back side, due to which, he fell down on the road and received grievous
injuries on his right hand, leg and all over his body. Thereafter, he was
taken to the Tata Main Hospital, Jamshedpur for treatment where he
remained as indoor patient from 18.11.2011 to 02.12.2011 and traumatic
amputation of index, middle, ring and small finger has been done. His
right hand along with all fingers and thumb till elbow has been grossly
crushed in the accident.
On being noticed, Opposite Parties appeared and filed its written
statement under Section 166 of the M.V. Act.
Learned Tribunal, on perusal of the documents brought on
record and after hearing counsel for the parties and upon going through
the written statement as well as other documents, framed following issues
for proper and just adjudication of the case:-
i) Whether this claim case is maintainable in the present form or
not?
ii) Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent
driving by the driver of vehicle bearing Reg. No. UP-78bt-4741 and
whether applicant got permanent disablement due to accident and what
is extent of functional disablement?
iii) Whether the vehicle was insured with Opposite Party-Insurance
Company at the time of accident and whether there is violation of
terms and conditions of the insurance policy including requirement of
valid driving license?
iv) Whether the applicant is entitled for compensation if yes what
would be quantum of compensation?
v) Whether claimant is entitled for any other relief or reliefs?
4. Learned Court below after hearing the parties and after perusing
the exhibited documents and oral evidences, elaborately dealt the issues
framed and thereafter, found that the claimant is entitled to receive
compensation amount. Resultantly, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum
of Rs.2,31,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of
filing of claim application till its realization, as compensation to be paid
by the Insurance Co. to the claimant within 30 days from this order.
5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned award dated
16.07.2015, as a meagre amount of Rs.2,31,000/- only has been awarded
by the learned Tribunal, appellant-claimant has approached this Court for
enhancement of the claim amount.
6. Ms. Swati Shalini, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-
claimant, assailing the judgment of the learned Court below argues that
award dated 16.07.2015 is bad in law as well as on fact and is liable to be
quashed and set aside. Learned counsel further argues that the learned
Court below has failed to take into consideration the medical certificate
and income tax acknowledgment produced by the appellant-claimant.
Learned counsel further argues that though the claimant has suffered 50%
disability but while awarding the compensation, the learned Court below
has only considered 15% disability of the claimant, though the claimant
has submitted medical certificate showing his disability as 50%. Learned
counsel further argues that though the monthly income of the claimant is
Rs.19000/- as per his ITR but the learned Court below has considered
only Rs.5000/- per month as his income. Learned counsel further argues
that since the claimant has sustained grievous injuries he was admitted in
hospital for treatment for more than 15 days i.e. from 18.11.2011 to
02.12.2011.
7. To buttress her arguments, learned counsel for the appellant-
claimant places heavy reliance on the following judgments:
(I) Jagdish Vs. Mohan & Ors. [(2018) 4 SCC 571].
8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent-Insurance Co. vehemently opposes the contention of the
learned counsel for the appellant-claimant and submits that the disability
certificate is forged since the accident took place in Jamshedpur, whereas,
certificate was obtained from Rohtak and the claimant has failed to
submit the reasons for obtaining the medical certificate from another State
which is far away from the place of occurrence. Further, the doctor who
has issued the medical certificate has not been examined and as such, as
per the plethora of judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as of this
Court, the said certificate is not reliable. Learned counsel further argues
that no reason has been given as to on what basis doctor has come to the
conclusion that claimant has suffered 50% disability. Learned counsel
further argues that ITR submitted by the claimant is also doubtful since
70% of the gross income cannot be deducted under the head of TDS.
9. Having heard the parties and upon considering the materials
available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the case
of the appellant needs consideration. Admittedly the accident has not been
denied and from the documents brought on record and from the pleadings
it appears that due to accident, finger of right hand of the claimant was
amputated. However, the learned Tribunal has considered only 15%
disability though the certificate submitted by the appellant shows 50%
disability. Though learned Tribunal has assessed compensation payable
but a very meagre amount of Rs.2,31,000/- has been awarded to the
appellant.
10. The similar issued fell for consideration before the Hon'ble
Apex Court in case of Jagdish v. Mohan, (2018) 4 SCC 571, wherein in
para-8 the Hon'ble Court has observed as under:
"8. In assessing the compensation payable the settled
principles need to be borne in mind. A victim who suffers a
permanent or temporary disability occasioned by an accident
is entitled to the award of compensation. The award of
compensation must cover among others, the following
aspects:
(i) Pain, suffering and trauma resulting from the
accident;
(ii) Loss of income including future income;
(iii) The inability of the victim to lead a normal life
together with its amenities;
(iv) Medical expenses including those that the victim
may be required to undertake in future; and
(v) Loss of expectation of life."
The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Jagdish v. Mohan (supra),
has further observed that:
"14. In making the computation in the present case,
the court must be mindful of the fact that the appellant has
suffered a serious disability in which he has suffered a loss of
the use of both his hands. For a person engaged in manual
activities, it requires no stretch of imagination to understand
that a loss of hands is a complete deprivation of the ability to
earn. Nothing--at least in the facts of this case--can restore
lost hands. But the measure of compensation must reflect a
genuine attempt of the law to restore the dignity of the being.
Our yardsticks of compensation should not be so abysmal as
to lead one to question whether our law values human life. If
it does, as it must, it must provide a realistic recompense for
the pain of loss and the trauma of suffering. Awards of
compensation are not law's doles. In a discourse of rights,
they constitute entitlements under law. Our conversations
about law must shift from a paternalistic subordination of the
individual to an assertion of enforceable rights as intrinsic to
human dignity."
11. Further, as per the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 at least
30% disability ought to have been considered. The relevant part of the
said act is quoted herein below:
3*[PART II
LIST OF INJURIES DEEMED TO RESULT IN PERMANENT
PARTIAL DISABLEMENT]
Amputation cases-upper limbs (either arm)
Sl. No. Description of Injury Percentage of los of
earning capacity
4*[2] Amputation below shoulder with stump less 80
than 8" from tip of acromion
4*[3] Amputation from 8" from tip of acromion to 70
less than 4.5" below tip of olecranon
fingers of one hand or amputation from 4.5"
below tip of olecranon
12. It appears that while making compensation in present case, the
Court was not mindful of the fact that the claimant has suffered more than
30% disability and his four fingers were amputated. The arguments of
learned counsel for the Insurance Company is not at all accepted that even
if the fingers had been amputated, the claimant has not been stopped from
working. Loss of fingers that also of the right hand, is complete
deprivation of ability to learn. A person is crippled by losing his fingers.
He cannot even eat or do other works in absence of fingers, which has
been completely amputated, that also of the right hand. In this background
it would be denial of justice and very comfortably it can be said that the
computed amount needs enhancement taking into consideration 30%
disability. It is also admitted that the claimant was hospitalised for 15
days.
13. In view of the discussions and observations made above and
taking into consideration the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court
in case of Jagdish v. Mohan (supra), the Award of the Tribunal is
modified to the extent given below:
SL. HEADS AMAOUNT COMMENTS
NO. PAYABLE
01. Lost of Income including 2,52,000 Rs.5000 per month X 30%
Future Income disability = Rs.1500
(considering 30% disability) So, Rs.1500 X 12 (Months)
X 14 (Multiplier)
02. Pain and suffering 50,000
03. Compensation for loss of 50,000
amenities and enjoyment in
life
04. Medical Expenses and 1,00,000
expenses for future
treatment, transportation
and special diet
05. Loss of expectation of life 25,000
06. Loss of earning during the 2,500 50% of monthly income of
period of hospitalization Rs.5000
Total= 4,79,500
14. In view of the aforesaid observations and direction, the award is
modified to the extent that the total amount of compensation to be paid to
the claimant is enhanced to Rs.4,79,500 (Rupees Four Lakh Seventy Nine
Thousand and Five Hundred) only. Since the claimant has already
received Rs.2,64,150/- on 11.09.2015 through cheque, as submitted by
Mr. G.C. Jha, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Co., the same
shall be adjusted from the total amount of enhanced compensation and the
remaining amount along with interest @ 9% per annum, as awarded by
the Court below, shall be paid to the Claimant as per the terms and
conditions of the Award, within a period of eight weeks from the date of
receipt/ production of a copy of this order.
15. With the aforesaid observations and directions the instant
Appeal stands allowed.
16. Office is directed to send the LCR to the Court concerned at the
earliest.
(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)
RC/ kunal/-
