The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI M.A. No. 45 of 2016 Anand Bara… -------- -Versus- Appellant 1. Subhodh Kumar Gupta 2. Vinod Oraon 3. The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch-Doranda, Ranchi…. ------ Respondents. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN. For the appellant: For the respondent(s): Mr. Harendra Kumar Singh, Advocate. ------- M/s A.K.Das & Swati Shalini, Advocates. ------ C.A.V. On: 13.06.2022 Pronounced on:12/ 06/2023 Order No.18: In this appeal, the appellant has prayed for enhancement of amount of compensation, awarded to the claimant-appellant, in Compensation Case No. 250/2004 vide Awarded dated 6.8.2015 passed by the Presiding Officer, Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranchi. 2. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on much lower side and the evidences have not been properly assessed by the Tribunal. He further submitted that at the time of accident, the appellant was aged about 18 years and as a result of the said accident, there is loss of future earnings. He also submitted that the future expenses for treatment, loss of amenities and loss of expectation of life have also not been considered. He further added that the appellant has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 75% due to amputation of his right leg above the knee, thus the compensation amount of Rs.2,43,000 on loss of future earing is absolutely illogical. He also submitted that the cost of prosthetic limb, which the appellant needs in future has also not been considered. On these grounds, the appellant seeks enhancement of the amount of compensation. 3.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel for the Insurance Company contested the appeal and submitted that the Tribunal has correctly assessed the amount of compensation of Rs.6,43,000/-. He further submitted that since there is no proper evidence, backing the claim of the claimant, the compensation which has been awarded is just and proper, which needs no interference by this Court. 4. The brief facts of this case is that on 21.3.2004 at about 9 a.m., the claimant along with his friends was going to Chamghati from Ranchi. They were on Motorcycle bearing Registration No. BR 14F 6069. When they reached village 2. Angara, a mini bus bearing Registration No. JH 01-7754, being driven rashly and negligently collided with the motorcycle. The claimant sustained multiple injuries. He was admitted at Sisir Seva Kendra, Ranchi. Ultimately his right leg above the knee was amputated and he became handicapped to the extent of 75%. The claimant spent huge amount on medical treatment, there is loss of future earing and recurring medical expenses in future, for which the claim application was filed. 5. The Insurance Company appeared and filed their written statement taking a plea that the rider of the Motorcycle was also responsible for the accident as the collision was head on. As per them, the driver of the bus was authorized to drive a light motor vehicle, but he was driving a bus, which is in violation of conditions of the policy. The motorcycle was also overloaded at the time of accident. On the aforesaid grounds, the insurer of the bus denied making payment of any compensation. However on quantum, it was their case that the compensation as sought for, is on much higher side. 6. On the basis of the pleadings, the tribunal has framed following issues. (I) Is the compensation case as framed maintainable? (II) Whether the claimant has valid cause of action? (III) Whether the injured Anand Bara at the time of his accident was aged about 18 years? (IV) Whether Anand Bara was injured as a result of motor vehicle arising out of use of Mini Bus bearing registration No. JH 01A 7754? (V) Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was having valid D.L. On the relevant date and time of accident and whether the owner/driver of the offending vehicle has committed breach the terms and conditions of the insurance policy? (VI) Whether the claimant is entitled to the claim as prayed for? If yes from whom and to what extent? (VII) To what relief or reliefs is the claimant entitled to? 7. The claimants examined three witnesses; C.W.-1- Ravi Kachhap, who is an eye witness of the accident, C.W.2 is the claimant himself and C.W.3 is Dr. Rajiv Kumar Verma, the Senior Prosthetist. Several documents were exhibited on behalf of the claimant, which are as follows:- Ext.1 is discharge slip dated 8.4.2004 issued from Sisir Sewa Kendera, Jail Road, Ranchi regarding the treatment of the claimant. 3. Ext.1/1 is certificate dated 25.3.2004 issued from Sisir Sewa Kendra, Jail Road, Ranchi regarding admission of the claimant and the treatment given to him. Ext-2 to 2/7 are 8 numbers of original bills/cash memos of various date relating to purchase of medicines and expenses incurred in course of treatment of the claimant. Ext.-3 is the certified copy of the character certificate of the claimant issued by Principal of St. Xavier's College, Ranchi. Ext.3/1 is statement of marks regarding passing of Bachelor of Commerce examination by the claimant. Ext.3/2 is the Provisional Certificate issued from the St. Xavier's College, Ranchi. Ext.3/3 is the certificate regarding passing of Bachelor of Commerce examination in Accounts (Hons.) by the claimant hel;d in the month of May-2009. Ext.4 is the certified copy of FIR of Angara P.S. Case No. 23/2004 dated 21.3.2004 under Section 279, 337, 338 IPC along with fardebyan of the informant Anil Kachhap. Ext.5 is the certified copy of the charge sheet of above noted case under the aforesaid sections against Jitendera Mahto, the driver of the offending vehicle. Ext.6 is the Xerox copy of the insurance policy of the vehicle in question. Ext.7 is the estimate dated 8.5.2015 issued by Rajiv Kumar Verma, prosthetist regarding price for right above knee prosthesis (artificial limb). Ext. 8 is the original disability certificate No. 1910 dated 2.8.2004 issued from the office of Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Ranchi. Ext.9 is the xerox copy of certificate of fitness of the offending Mini Bus, Ext.10 is the xerox copy of permit of the offending Mini Bus. Ext. 11 is the xerox copy of tax token of the offending Mini Bus. Ext.12 is the xerox copy of registration certificate of the offending bus. 8. The Insurance Company filed the investigation report dated 18.9.2005, which is marked as Ext.-A. Save and except the aforesaid report, neither any oral evidence nor any other documentary evidence was produced by them. 9. The Tribunal, in paragraph 6 of the judgment, has held that the Insurance Company has not produced any evidence to suggest that the claimant was himself responsible for the said accident. Further, it has been held that there is no chit of paper to show that there was violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy from the side of the owner of the offending vehicle i.e. mini bus either on the point of driving licence of the driver or permit of bus in question. Though, in the surveyor report, the surveyor mentioned that the driver was not 4. authorized to drive public service vehicle, but the Tribunal has held that the report of the District Transport Officer has not been brought on record nor the driving licence of the driver, rather the Insurance Company has admitted that the vehicle was insured with them. 10. This appeal is at the instance of the claimant. The Insurance Company has not filed any appeal against the aforesaid finding of the Tribunal. Thus the findings of the Tribunal on the aforesaid issue is final and need not be re-opened in this appeal. The only aspect which I will deal with in this appeal is in relation to the quantum of compensation. 11. C.W.2 is the claimant himself, who stated about the accident and the manner how the accident had occurred. He stated that the right leg of the claimant got amputated from mid thigh, as a result of which, he became 75% disabled and he requires assistance of others. He also narrated his disability in performing simple task like fetching up a bucket of water from well, riding of bicycle, motorcycle etc. The claimant shows hardship in free movement and also in climbing stairs. He further stated that the future prospect of the claimant is completely ruined. He further stated that his artificial leg is of ordinary quality and it is heavy, as a result of which, the claimant is not able to work properly. Thus the claimant needs good quality of artificial leg. He also stated that the claimant incurred huge amount of Rs.5,00,000/- towards his treatment. C.W.1-Ravi Kachhap, who is an eye witness of the accident, has narrated about the manner of accident. He stated that the claimant has become disabled which is to the extent of 75%, as he cannot lead normal life. C.W.-3-Dr. Rajiv Kumar Verma, who is senior Prosthetist and deals in artificial limb. According to him, a cost of good limb is Rs.8,25,000/-, which will last for a period of 5 to 7 years and thereafter it requires replacement. He stated that the “Jaipur Foot” is of inferior quality. He admitted that he has not obtained any quotation to verify the price of artificial limb, but he is making said statement from his knowledge as he deals in the same. He further stated that this type of limb can be acquired for a sum of Rs.50,000/- also but it is not possible to say as to whether the same will suit the claimant or not. 12. From the evidence lead by the parties, I find that the Tribunal has assessed Rs.6,43,000/- as compensation, bifurcating the same head-wise, which is as follows:- 5. (I) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation,nourishing, food and miscellaneous expenditure= Rs.50,000/- (ii) Loss of future earning on account of permanent disability = (iii) (iv) Future medical expenses= Damages of pain, suffering and trauma as a Rs.2,43,000/- Rs.1,50,000/- consequences of the injury= Rs.1,00,000/- (v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage)= (vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of Normal longevity)= Total: Rs.50,000/- Rs.50,000/- Rs.6,43,000/- 13. From the evidence and the facts of this case, it is clear that at the time of accident the claimant was aged about 18 years and was a student of Graduation 2nd year of St. Xavier College, Ranchi. His disability is to the extent of 75% as there is amputation of his right leg above the knee. Ext.-8 is the disability certificate, which has been taken note of by the Tribunal. Ext.-1/1 is the certificate dated 25.3.2004 issued by Sisir Seva Kendra, Ranchi regarding admission of the claimant and the treatment given to him, which certifies that the claimant has undergone amputation above knee of the right leg. Thus, the fact that the appellant is disabled to the extent of 75% due to amputation of right leg above knee is admitted. 14. The Tribunal assessed the notional income to the appellant as Rs.1500/- per month, which according to this Court is on much lower side. Admittedly, the appellant was a student of St. Xavier College, Ranchi. As per Ext.3/2, he was a B.Com. student and had passed B.Com. Examination, held in the month of May 2009. It is not expected that a Commerce graduate student can only earn Rs.1500 per month i.e.Rs.18,000/- per year. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kajal Vs. Jagdish Chand and Others, reported in (2020) 4 SCC 413 held that a young girl aged about 12 years being a student, her notional income cannot be Rs. 15,000/- per annum. In the aforesaid case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court adjudged that the minimum wages per month would be the correct income. In this case, according to this Court, considering the educational qualification of the appellant, I am of the opinion that Rs.60,000/- per 6. annum (Rs. 5,000/- per month) would be the correct assessment of the income of the claimant . 15. So far as the medical expense is concerned, only Rs.50,000/- has been awarded to the claimant. Ext.-2 series, suggests that the appellant spent Rs.22,000/- and odd towards his treatment but it is his case that some bills have got misplaced. In the aforesaid judgment in the case of Kajal (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court took note that in lower class and middle class family, in this type of situation, medical vouchers definitely gets misplaced and the amount of the bill is unreasonable. Further there is evidence that Rs.50,000/- has been spent on the prosthetic leg. Thus, in my view, Rs.1,00,000/- would be the correct amount of compensation towards medical expenses. 16. Admittedly, the appellant is handicapped to the extent of 75%, he needs future medical treatment. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case has held that in meeting the amount, only taking the bills already paid, is unreasonable. The future treatment may also include the prosthetic limb. The claimant claims that the cost of such leg would be Rs.8,00,000/-, but the same is not based on proper evidence. C.W.-3 gave such statement merely on assumption, as he deals in prosthetic leg, but the comparative chart has not been produced showing the rate of such limb. In his evidence, he also deposed that the price of the prosthetic leg can be Rs.50,000 also. There is huge discrepancies in the evidence so far as it relates to the cost of prosthetic limb. From the evidence, it is clear that the leg which the petitioner is using is not suiting him rather, it is heavy and due to using the same, he is facing difficulty. Admittedly the same needs replacement. Thus, the opinion of this Court is that Rs.1,50,000/- would be sufficient for the appellant for the prosthetic limb. Thus the total future medical expenses including prosthetic limb will be Rs.2,50,000/-. 17. The appellant also needs to be compensated for damages for pain suffering and trauma, loss of amenities and loss of expectation of life. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs.1,00,000 for pain suffering, Rs.50,000 for loss of amenities and also Rs.50,000 for loss of expectation of life). There is evidence that the appellant is suffering because of the accident and his quality of life deteriorated. It is difficult for him to lead daily life as it is difficult for him to climb stairs, fetch a bucket of water from well and doing other daily work. He also stated that due to poor quality of artificial leg, he is unable to work. A person whose leg gets amputated above the knee cannot lead a normal life. His several 7. prospects of life get curtailed. Thus he also needs to be compensated. This Court feels that a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- under the aforesaid head, as awarded, is on much lower side. According to me, the same should be Rs.5,00,000/-. 18. So far as percentage of disability is concerned, I find that no dispute has arisen between the parties as there is certificate which suggests that the appellant is disabled to the extent of 75%, thus I am not interfering with the same. 19. Thus, from what has been held above, the just compensation would be as follows:- 75% of Rs.60,000(notional income)= Rs.45,000/- Rs.45,000 x 18 (multiplier)= Rs.8,10,000/- 40% of 8,10,000 (future prospect)= Rs. 3,24,000/- Medical Treatment expenses= Rs.1,00,000/- Future medical treatment expenses= Rs.2,50,000/- For damages for pain, suffering, Loss of amenities and loss of Expectation of life= Total= Rs.5,00,000/- Rs.19,84,000/- The amount already paid= (-) Rs.6,43,000/- Balance= Rs.13,41,000/- (thirteen lakh forty one thousand only) 20. The balance amount Rs.13,41,000/- will carry interest @ 7% per annum from the date of judgment of the Tribunal till June 2022. 21. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this appeal stands allowed. NAFR/ Anu/-Cp2. (ANANDA SEN, J.)