Jharkhand High Court
Rekha Sinha vs Branch Manager on 12 February, 2025
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M. A. No. 102 of 2013
-----
Rekha Sinha, W/o Sri Utam Kumar Sinha, R/o Bhabhan Toli, Station
Road, P.O. & P.S.-Sadar, Dist.-Giridih ... .... Appellant
Versus
1. Branch Manager, New India Assurance Company, Giridih, Pachema
Road, Near Telephone Office, At P.O & P.S.-Giridih, Dist.-Giridih
2. Sunita Devi, W/o Sri Vijay Kumar Jayaswal, R/o Village-Hutti
Bazar Station Road, P.O. & P.S.-Giridih, Dist.-Giridih
... .... Respondents
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
-----
For the Appellant : Mr. Pradeep Kr. Prasad, Advocate
For the Insurance Co. : Mr. G.C. Jha, Advocate
For the Respondent-2 : Mr. Arvind Kr. Lall, Advocate
-----
Oral Order
08 / Dated : 12.02.2025
1. This appeal is preferred against the award of compensation of
Rs. 2.15,000/- in Claims Case No. 01 of 1999 to the appellant/claimant
for the permanent disability resulting out of a motor vehicle accident.
2. As per the case of the claimant, the accident took place on
09.06.1998 when she was travelling on a bus bearing Registration No.
BR14P5055 between Bishnugarh and Tati Jharia. In the said accident,
the claimant suffered permanent disability of right hand.
3. It is argued by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant that at the time of the accident the claimant was a teacher in a
private school and the evidence was led before the Tribunal regarding
monthly income. Learned Tribunal has accepted the monthly income of
the claimant as Rs. 5,000/- per month and awarded a compensation of
Rs. 2,15,000/- under the following heads:
(i) Mental pain agony of Rs. 1,00,000/-
(ii) Rs.15,000/- as loss of salary for three months when she could
attend to her work
(iii) Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of medical examination and
purchase of medicines.
4. It is also submitted that no salary certificate has been filed to
prove the income of Rs. 5000/-. It is further submitted that it was not a
case of contributory negligence but learned Tribunal has recorded a
finding regarding contributory negligence 50% on the part of both the
vehicles. Contributory negligence is a question of fact which needs no
interference by this Court.
5. Mr. G.C. Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Insurance Company submits that not a chit of paper was exhibited
before the Tribunal regarding 45% disability. A photocopy of the
disability certificate was filed but that was not proved. Further, the
judgment does not refer to any medical paper regarding treatment of the
claimant.
Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both
sides, I find that learned Tribunal has given sufficient reasons for
awarding lumpsum compensation of Rs. 2,15,000/-. No disability
certificate was proved and it was a case of fracture of hand which
cannot be said to be case of permanent disability. I do not find any
infirmity in the impugned order.
This Misc. Appeal is dismissed.
Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
AKT/Satendra
