Jharkhand High Court
Babulal Oraon vs Sonamati Devi on 7 February, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No. 340 of 2017
Babulal Oraon .... Appellant(s).
Versus
1. Sonamati Devi
2. Muslim Ansari
3. Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Doranda, Ranchi.
... Respondent(s)
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.
Through: Video Conferencing
------
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Prashant Kr. Rahul, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. Alok Lal, Advocate.
Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate.
.........
Reserved On: 15.12.2021 Pronounced on: 7/02/2023
In this appeal, the appellant-claimant has challenged the judgment and
award dated 23.2.2017 passed by the learned District Judge-3rd-cum-P.O., MACT,
Latehar in M.V. Claim Case No. 53/2009, whereby, a sum of Rs.2,99,520/- has been
awarded as compensation to the claimant.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant submits that the tribunal has
awarded the compensation amount of Rs.3,24,520/- to the claimant on account of
the injury caused in an accident due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle
bearing registration No. BR 14G 1588. He further submits that the amount of
compensation is inadequate in case of permanent disablement. He further submits
that the learned Tribunal has not applied the correct principle of law in awarding the
amount of compensation. He further submits that the Tribunal has incorrectly
assessed the monthly income of Rs.3000/- per month of the claimant. He further
submits that in the accident, the claimant was injured and received serious multiple
injuries, his left leg was amputed and his bicycle was also damaged causing
permanent disablement.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent i.e. the owner of the vehicle submits that
the claimant neither has any right of compensation nor have any cause of action for
this claim under the M.V. Act. He further submits that at the time of accident, the
offending vehicle was insured by the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and the
Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner from all liabilities which arose
due to the accident. He further submits that at the time of accident, the driver of the
offending vehicle was holding valid driving licence and the vehicle was being plied
under a valid road permit, fitness certificate, tax token etc. He further submits that
the accident was caused due to mechanical break down which was beyond the
control of the driver.
5. The counsel for the Insurance company submits that there was a
violation of statutory condition of the insurance policy and therefore, the Insurance
Company is not liable to indemnify the insured. He further submits that unless the
driving licence includes a clause to drive a commercial vehicle by the driver at the
time of accident, no award can be made against the insurance company. He further
submits that even if the claimant proves his case, he is entitled only for
compensation regarding actual medical expenses. The Insurance company denied
the fact that the injured was a skilled labourer. He further submits that the quantum
of compensation as claimed by the applicant is very high and excessive.
6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed 09
issues, which are as follows:-
(i) Whether the instance claim application as filed on behalf of present
claimant Babulal Oraon in the present form, is it maintainable?
(ii) Whether the valid cause of action accrued in favour of the present
claimant -Balulal Oraon for grant of compensation amount arising out of
injured of Babulal Oraon who injured in an accident i.e. Motor Vehicle
Accident which took place on 14.9.2001 at about 17:30 near Bariatu
High School upon Balumath Chatra Road within P.S. Balumath , District
latehar for which Balumath P.S. Case No. 43/01, G.R. No. 333/01
under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 427 IPC was registered against the
offending vehicle i.e. 407 Mini Truck registration No. BR 14G 1588
which was driving by Opp. Party No. 2 Muslim Ansari?
(iii) Whether the accident as alleged took place i.e. due to rash and
negligent driving of the driver of offending vehicle i.e. 407 Mini Truck
bearing registration No. BR 14G 1588?
(iv) Whether the driver namely O.P. No. 2 Muslim Ansari was holding a
valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident as took place
on 14.09.2001?
(v) Whether the offending vehicle 407 Mini Truck bearing Registration No.
BR 14G 1588 was insured with a valid and effective insurance policy
issued by O.P. No. 3 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and effective at
the time of accident as took place on 14.09.2001?
(vi) Whether the terms and condition of the aforesaid insurance policy of
the vehicle involved in an accident has been violated or not?
(vii) What was the age and income of the injured Babulal Oraon i.e. at the
time of accident as took place on 14.09.2001?
(viii) Whether the claimants are entitled to get compensation as prayed for, if
yes, then to what amount of compensation along with interest and from
whom of the O.Ps?
(ix) What other relief/relieves present claimant are entitled to receive?
Some documents have also been filed to substantiate the case of the
claimant, which are as follows:-
(i) Exhibit 1: Certified copy of the FIR
(ii) Exhibit 2: Certified copy of charge-sheet.
(iii) Exhibit 3: Original Handicapped certificate.
(iv) Exhibit 4: Photocopy of R/C Book of vehicle No. BR 14G 1588
(v) Exhibit 5: Photocopy of D.L. of the driver Muslim Ansari.
(vi) Exhibit 6: Photocopy of Tax Token
(vii) Exhibit 7: Photocopy of Insurance Policy bearing No.
210604/31/021/16-04168 (period 22.3.2001 to 31.01.2002)
(viii) Exhibit 8: Photocopy of Temporary Permit.
7. After hearing the parties, I have gone through the impugned award and
the records of this case. The case of the claimant is that on 14.9.2001 at about 5
p.m., he was going on bicycle to his home after attending the market from Bariyatu.
As soon as he reached near Bariyatu High School, a truck 407 bearing registration
No. BR 14G 1588 dashed the bicycle from backside which was being driven rashly
and negligently due to which, he received serious injury and his left leg was
completely damaged and thereafter, he was brought to PHC Balumath for treatment.
A case being Balumath P.S. Case No. 45/01 for the offence under Sections 279,
337, 338 and 427 IPC was registered. After investigation, Charge sheet was
submitted against the driver of the offending vehicle.
8. The Tribunal has decided Issue Nos. (i) to (vi) in favour of the claimant
and against the opposite parties. For the purpose of calculation of compensation
amount, the age of the claimant, assessed by the tribunal, is 34 years and the said
assessment is based on the age mentioned in the claim application as well as the
age mentioned in the Disability certificate (Ext.3). So far as income of the claimant
is concerned, the claimant has not filed any certificate regarding his income, thus
the tribunal after taking into considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Kalpana and Others
reported in (2007) 2 JCR 41 SC, considered the income of the claimant as Rs.
3000/- per month for the purpose of calculation of the compensation amount. The
loss of earning capacity of the claimant has also been assessed by the claimant
upto 40% due to disability certificate issued by the Medical Officer, Primary Health
Centre, Balumath, Latehar. Thus after considering all the aspects the Tribunal
awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.2,99,520/- to the claimant after deducting
compensation paid under Section 140 of the M.V. Act, which should be paid by the
Insurance Company from the date of filing of the claim case with interest at the rate
of 7% per annum.
9. After going through the evidence, I find that C.W.1, i.e., claimant
Babu Lal Oraon has narrated in his examination-in-chief the manner in which the
accident had taken place. He stated that he was 34 years of age and he
sustained serious injury on his leg. In cross-examination, he stated that he has 4-
5 acres of land and earns his livelihood by cultivating the same. He is not in a
position to work now as his leg got amputed.
C.W.2 is the wife of the injured-claimant. She stated that the claimant had
to be admitted in hospital for better treatment and he has 40% disability. She
stated that she is now earning livelihood for his family by working as a labourer.
The disability certificate has been brought on record, though neither any doctor
nor any signatory to the disability certificate was produced to prove the same.
After going through the disability certificate, one thing is clear that the left leg of
claimant is amputed which is not disputed. It is also not disputed that the
petitioner was a cultivator. After one of the legs gets amputed below the knee, life
becomes difficult, more so when a person has to earn his livelihood by exerting
physical labour. As a farmer and a cultivator, the claimant has to suffer huge loss.
This loss needs to be compensated.
10. A farmer or an agriculturist with one leg amputed cannot even
plough his fields and his movement in the fields while doing agricultural work will
be restricted. Thus, the functional disability of the claimant would be much more
than 40%. This Court is of the opinion that loss of earning capacity of the
claimant is nearly 60% and cannot be restricted to 40% of his disability as
assessed by the Tribunal.
11. The Tribunal has not granted any amount of compensation for the
medical treatment, as he could not submit any bill. This Court also cannot be
oblivious of the situation that in this country poor people, who spend money for
their treatment, usually do not keep their bills, cash memos and vouchers with
them. Further, it is a case where the leg of the petitioner is amputed in an
accident, where it is not expected that he would not have spend a single farthing.
Though there are no documents to suggest the amount which the claimant had
to spend, but, this Court is of the opinion that in the head of medical expenses,
an amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) should be paid as
compensation. There are future medical complications also to a person, who has
undergone amputation of his leg, for which future medical treatment is also
required. He needs to be compensated for the same. Thus, on that account,
Rs.25,000/- should be paid to the claimant.
12. The damages for pain and suffering has been awarded at
Rs.25,000/-, which this Court feels should be enhanced to Rs.50,000/-. This
claimant is also incapacitated to perform his day to day routine works for which
he also needs to be compensated, for which an amount of Rs.35,000/- should be
awarded to the claimant.
13. Thus, in view of what has been held above, the claimant would be
entitled to the compensation amount in the following manner:-
Sl. No. Heads Calculation
1 Loss of earning capacity Rs.3,45,600/-
2 Loss of future prospect (addition of 60% Rs.2,07,360/-
earning capacity)
3 Expenses of Medical Treatment Rs.50,000/-
4 Damages for pain and suffering Rs.50,000/-
5 Future medical treatment Rs.25,000/-
6 Compensation due to in capitation in Rs.35,000/-
performing routine work
7 Already paid under Section 140 M.V. Act. (-) Rs.25,000/-
Total compensation awarded: Rs.6,87,960/-
14. Thus, in view of this Court, Rs.6,87,960/- (rupees six lakh eighty
seven thousand nine hundred sixty) would be the amount which the claimant is
entitled to receive. The said amount of compensation shall bear an interest at the
rate of 6% per annum from January 2019, when notices were served upon the
respondents till date of actual payment.
15. This miscellaneous appeal, accordingly, stands allowed.
Anu/-CP2. (ANANDA SEN, J.)
