Jharkhand High Court
Tulsi Yadav vs Gagandeep Singh & Others on 11 May, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Civil Miscellaneous Appellate Jurisdiction)
M.A. No. 369 of 2018
........
Tulsi Yadav .... ..... Appellant
Versus
Gagandeep Singh & Others .... ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO
............
For the Appellant : Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate.
The matter is being taken up through Video Conferencing. Learned counsel for
the parties have no objection with it and submitted that the audio and video
qualities are good.
........
11/11.05.2023.
Learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall has
submitted, that the learned Tribunal has wrongly considered the age of
the appellant to be 60 years contrary to the injury report, where the
Doctor has assessed the age of the injured appellant to be 44 years.
Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted, for the
period during which the appellant was admitted i.e. from 27.03.2015 till
01.04.2015, no amount for loss of earning has been granted by the
learned Tribunal nor any amount for loss of future earning, because
learned Tribunal has wrongly considered the permanent disability of
40%, to be temporary disability and as such, the compensation amount
may be enhanced.
Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted, that
from perusal of impugned award, it appears that during treatment, steel
rod was inserted in right thigh and thus, appellant / injured become
permanent disabled, as such loss of earning for 06 days may also be
granted.
Learned counsel for the respondent / Insurance Company, Mr.
Manish Kumar has submitted, that any assessment of age by a Doctor is
an assessment by naked eye and that cannot be a proof of age of a
person.
Learned counsel for the respondent / Insurance Company has
further submitted, that the F.I.R. shows that appellant - Tulsi Yadav was
purchasing tobacco and he sustained injury due to road accident caused
by offending Truck bearing registration No. PB-19F-2695 and the
sentence used in the F.I.R. for the injured may profitably be quoted
hereunder:
xqeVh esa [kSuh [kjhn jgk cq <+k O;fDr ftLkdk uke rqylh ;kno firk Lo0
gj[kq ;kno xzke f'koqMhg gS ,oa xqeVh ekfyd 'kadj oekZ dh yM++dh eqLdku dqekjh
dks xaHkhj pksVsa vk;h gSA
Learned counsel for the respondent / Insurance Company has
further submitted, that so far the loss of future earning is concerned,
since the appellant is 60 years old, there is provision for grant of future
prospect in the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors.
reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 (Para-59.4) is 10% only for the
deceased between the age of 50 to 60 years.
Learned counsel for the respondent / Insurance Company has
further submitted, that even in India the average age of person is
considered to be 70 years.
This Court has tried to persuade the appellant as well as
respondent to settle this issue in the National Lok Adalat.
Upon which, learned counsel for the respondent / Insurance
Company, Mr. Manish Kumar has submitted, that the appellant should
disclose that what is the tentative amount, he wants for settlement.
In reply, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Arvind Kumar
Lall has submitted, that tentative amount between 9-10 lacs is sufficient
for settlement.
Learned counsel for the respondent / Insurance Company, Mr.
Manish Kumar has submitted, that the amount disclosed by learned
counsel for the appellant, Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall seems to be
exorbitantly high, as such, it is very difficult for the Insurance
Company to settle such case in the National Lok Adalat.
Considering the same, appellant is directed to being on record
the proof of his age before this Court.
Admit.
Since, the L.C.R. has already been received, let the appeal be
heard in detail.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)
Sunil/-
