Jharkhand High Court
Md. Jahid vs Arvind Kumar Agrawal on 16 April, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
2025:JHHC:11492
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
M.A. No. 195 of 2017
----
Md. Jahid, s/o Kalim Miya, R/o village - Kunjra Toli Pachwa
Muhalla, PO - Chatra, PS - Sadar, District - Chatra
.... Appellant
-- Versus --
1. Arvind Kumar Agrawal, s/o Sri Ayodhya Prasad Agrawal,
R/o - Main Road, Chatra, PO and PS - Chatra, District - Chatra
2. The New India Insurance Company Ltd, Savitri Sadan, 2nd
Floor, Saheed Chowk, PO and PS - GPO, District - Ranchi,
Jharkhand .... Respondents
With
M.A. No. 577 of 2016
----
The New India Assurance Company Ltd, Savitri Sadan, 2nd Floor,
Saheed Chowk, Main Road, Ranchi, PO - Ranchi, PS - Kotwali,
District - Ranchi, Jharkhand, represented through its Asstt.
Manager and duly constituted attorney of the New India
Assurance Co. Ltd. Ranchi, D.O.- I, Ranchi, Sethi Corporate, 2nd
Floor, P.P. Compound, Ranchi, PO and PS - Hindpiri, District -
Ranchi, Jharkhand ..... Appellant
-- Versus --
1. Md. Jahid, s/o Kalim Miya, R/o village - Kunjra Toli
Pachwa Muhalla, PO - Chatra, PS - Sadar, District - Chatra
2. Arvind Kumar Agrawal, s/o Sri Ayodhya Prasad Agrawal,
R/o - Main Road, Chatra, PO and PS - Chatra, District - Chatra
..... Respondents
With
----
The New India Assurance Company Ltd, Savitri Sadan, 2nd Floor,
--1-- M.A. No. 195 of 2017 with M.A. No. 577 of 2016
580 of 2016 and 196 of 2017
2025:JHHC:11492
Saheed Chowk, Main Road, Ranchi, PO - Ranchi, PS - Kotwali,
District - Ranchi, Jharkhand, represented through its Asstt.
Manager and duly constituted attorney of the New India
Assurance Co. Ltd. Ranchi, D.O.- I, Ranchi, Sethi Corporate, 2nd
Floor, P.P. Compound, Ranchi, PO and PS - Hindpiri, District -
Ranchi, Jharkhand ..... Appellant
-- Versus --
1. Dharmendra Kumar Pandey, son of Rambharos Pandey,
resident of village - Dewaria, PO and PS - Chatra, District -
Chatra, Jharkhand
2. Arvind Kumar Agarwal, son of Sri Ayodhya Prasad
Agarwal, Main Road, Chatra, PO and PS - Chatra, District -
Chatra ..... Respondents
With
----
Dharmendra Kumar Pandey, S/o Rambhoras Pandey, R/o village
- Dewaria, PO - Chatra, PS - Sadar, District - Chatra
..... Appellant
-- Versus --
1. Arvind Kumar Agrawal, son of Sri Ayodhya Prasad
Agarwal, Main Road, Chatra, PO and PS - Chatra, District -
Chatra
2. The New India Assurance Company Ltd, Savitri Sadan, 2nd
Floor, Saheed Chowk, PO and PS - GPO, District - Ranchi,
Jharkhand, ..... Respondents
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---
M.A. No. 195 of 2017 and 196 of 2017
For the Appellant :- Mr. Vijay Kr. Sharma, Advocate
For Respondents :- Mr. Ganesh C. Jha, Advocate
M.A. No. 577 of 2016 & 580 of 2016
For the Appellant :- Mr. Ganesh C. Jha, Advocate
--2-- M.A. No. 195 of 2017 with M.A. No. 577 of 2016
580 of 2016 and 196 of 2017
2025:JHHC:11492
For the Respondents :- Mr. Vijay Kr. Sharma, Advocate
----
12/16.04.2025 Notice upon the Arvind Kumar Agrawal, who is respondent
in all the appeals being the owner is already effected, however
nobody has appeared on behalf of the owner being Arvind Kumar
Agrawal and the notice was received by self, as such this appeal is
being heard in absence of Arvind Kumar Agrawal, who is the owner
of the vehicle in question.
2. Heard, Mr. Vijay Kr. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for
the appellant in M.A. No.195 of 2017 and M.A. No.196 of 2017
which has been filed by the claimants and Mr. Ganesh C. Jha,
learned counsel appearing for the insurance company in both the
appeals.
3. Mr. Ganesh C. Jha, learned counsel has filed the appeal in
M.A. No.577 of 2016 and M.A. No.580 of 2016 by the insurance
company and Mr. Vijay Kr. Sharma, learned counsel has appeared
on behalf of the claimants in both the appeals.
4. M.A. No.195 of 2017 has been preferred by the claimants
against the judgment dated 09.06.2016 passed in Claim Case No.31
of 2003 and M.A. No.196 of 2017 has been preferred against the
judgment and award dated 09.06.2016 arising out of the Claim Case
No.21 of 2006 and both the cases have been decided together and
the same award is challenged by the insurance company in M.A.
No.577 of 2016 and M.A. No.580 of 2016.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimants
--3-- M.A. No. 195 of 2017 with M.A. No. 577 of 2016
580 of 2016 and 196 of 2017
2025:JHHC:11492
submits that the learned Court has wrongly deducted the one third
amount from the income and to buttress this argument he relied on
the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar
versus Ajay Kumar and Another reported in 2011 1 SCC
343. He further submits that under the head of pain and suffering
only Rs.5,000/- has been awarded. He submits that meagre amount
of Rs.1,00,000/- has been provided as future prospect. On this
ground, he submits that the said award may kindly be modified.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the insurance company
opposes the prayer and submits that the Tribunal has found that the
disability has not been proved before the Tribunal and even the bills
and voucher of expenditure has not produced and the earning has
been rightly calculated. He submits in view of that there is no
illegality in the impugned order, so far the enhancement is
concerned.
7. He further submits that the learned Tribunal wrongly passed
the award and fastened the liability upon the insurance company.
He submits that the learned Court has not taken into consideration
about the permit and driving license and the entire liability has been
fastened upon the insurance company and in view of that the
appeal preferred by the insurance company may kindly be allowed
and the interest would be 6% in light of judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Sarala Verma & Ors. v. Delhi
Transport Corporation & Ors. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 .
--4-- M.A. No. 195 of 2017 with M.A. No. 577 of 2016
580 of 2016 and 196 of 2017
2025:JHHC:11492
On this ground, he submits that the appeal preferred by the
insurance company may kindly be allowed.
8. In view of above submission of learned counsel appearing
for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record
including the trial court record as well as the impugned award. In
paragraph No.23 of the judgment, the learned Tribunal has found
that the claimants have not filed the certificate showing their
percentage of disablement. They have also not filed the proof of
bills and vouchers of expenditure made in their treatment but only
some prescription and treatment attendance chart has been filed to
show that they were treated for a prolonged period. Even the
income has not been proved by way of any documentary evidence
and in light of that the learned Court has awarded the
compensation under head of future prospect as Rs.1,00,000/- and
Rs.5,000/- has been allowed as pain and sufferings and from the
income one third amount has been directed to be recovered and
interest has also been directed to be calculated.
9. Thus, in view of the above finding, the Court finds that
there is no illegality so far the calculation and award of the amount
is concerned, however, the Court finds force with regard to the
deduction of one third of the income in light of the judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar versus Ajay
Kumar and Another (supra) on which the reliance has been
placed by learned counsel appearing for the appellant, as such that
--5-- M.A. No. 195 of 2017 with M.A. No. 577 of 2016
580 of 2016 and 196 of 2017
2025:JHHC:11492
part of the award is modified to the effect that there will not be any
deduction of one third of the income, as such the award dated
09.06.2016 is modified to the above extent.
10. So far the appeal of the insurance company is concerned,
the Court finds that the insurance company has not been able to
prove about the permit and driving license by way of cogent
evidence before the learned Tribunal and if the issue was not
framed, the appellant - insurance company was required to move
before the competent court for framing of issue that has not been
done by the insurance company and the meagre amount has been
allowed in both the claim case.
11. So far the judgment relied by Mr. Jha, learned counsel in
the case of Sarala Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport
Corporation & Ors. (supra) is concerned that is with regard to
the interest, the Court finds that the interest has been provided to
the claimants with simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date
of the application till the date of actual payment, however
considering the meagre amount in a case of injury is provided, the
contention of Mr. Jha with regard to the interest is not being
accepted by the Court.
12. In view of the above M.A. No.577 of 2016 and M.A. No.580
of 2016 is hereby dismissed and M.A. No.195 of 2017 and M.A.
No.196 of 2017 is hereby allowed to the effect that one third
deduction will not be there from the income. As such M.A. No.195
--6-- M.A. No. 195 of 2017 with M.A. No. 577 of 2016
580 of 2016 and 196 of 2017
2025:JHHC:11492
of 2017 and M.A. No.196 of 2017 is hereby allowed in part and
disposed of.
13. The statutory amount deposited by the insurance company
in M.A. No.577 of 2016 and M.A. No.580 of 2016 shall be
transmitted back to the learned Court which will be utilized in
satisfying the award in favour of the claimants.
14. Let the trial court record be sent back to the learned Court
forth with.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Sangam/
--7-- M.A. No. 195 of 2017 with M.A. No. 577 of 2016
580 of 2016 and 196 of 2017
