The High Court
Case Details
2025:JHHC:32660 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI M. A. No. 156 of 2021 Md. Sahabuddin, S/o Md. Salim, R/o Village Baddiha, P.O.-Sharmatand, P.S.-Jainagar, Dist.-Koderma, at present Village-Pelawal, Azad Nagar, P.S.- Appellant Katkamsandi, P.O. & Dist.-Hazaribag …. .... Versus 1. Ayaz Khan, S/o Mahboob Khan, R/o House No. 46, Mohalla, Rohit Tola, Old City, P.O. & P.S.-Baradani, Dist.-Barely, U.P. 2. Soyeb Khan, S/o Naushad Khan, R/o House No. 629/735 KH, Biharipur Civil Line, Railway Colony, P.S.-City Barely, P.O. & Dist.-Barely, U.P. 3. United India Insurance Company Ltd., through Divisional Manager, Prabhu Niwas Market, Ananda Chowk, Hazaribag, P.S.-Sadar, P.O. & Dist.- Hazaribag, Jharkhand .... .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY ----- ----- For the Appellant For Respondent-3
Legal Reasoning
13. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides and the material on record the following main points for determination falls for consideration: a. If the Tribunal erred in recording a finding of 25% contributory negligence on the part of the claimant? b. If the Tribunal erred to hold a functional disability of only 60% when the claimant was a driver of a heavy motor vehicle, and the accident had resulted in amputation of one of his leg? c. If fair and reasonable compensation has been awarded under other heads to the claimant? 3 2025:JHHC:32660 14. It is settled principle of law that an appellate court will not unsettle a finding of fact recorded by a trial court if it is based on evidence. Merely because two views are possible on the evidence on record, the appellate court is not entitled to take a contrary view. 15. Here in the present case, there is no dispute on the manner in which the accident took place. The accident is attributed to the wrong parking of the offending vehicle. Admitted fact of the Case is that both the vehicles involved in the accident were heavy commercial vehicles. It is also not in dispute that offending vehicle was a trailer and was stationary at the time of accident. Even if it is assumed that the offending vehicle was wrongly parked, claimant cannot completely be absolved of negligence on his part in not exercising due care while driving his vehicle. Parking of the vehicle cannot be termed as causa causans to the accident. In the FIR (Ext-1), it is stated that the truck hit the offending vehicle parked on the wrong side. Informant is the brother of the claimant and has stated that accident took place when the container dashed against the trailer which was wrongly parked. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity with regard to 25% contributory negligence attributed to the claimant. 16. With regard to the functional disability, as per the permanent disablement certificate claimant had suffered 85% personal disability. The learned tribunal has assessed the income of the claimant from his occupation of driving and being owner of the vehicle be Rs.12,000/-. Accident took place in 2016, and income of Rs. 12000/- cannot by any stretch of imagination be said to be excessive from his occupation of driving. 17. While deciding an issue a functional disability the question germane for consideration is whether the injured would continue with his functions after suffering the disability. Leg of a driver is so intrinsic to driving, that losing it will completely disable him from driving heavy motor vehicle. 18. This Court is of the view that learned Tribunal erred in assessing the functional disability of only 60 % on the functional disability of the driver. Claimant being the driver of a heavy motor vehicle losing one of his leg which was amputed, suffered 100% functional disability, as he could not again drive the heavy motor vehicle with degree of 4 2025:JHHC:32660 disability. 19. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstance, the claimant shall be entitled to the following compensation amount: Annual Income Rs.12,000/- x 12 = Rs.1,44,000/- Multiplier based on age of 37 years Loss of earning Medical expenses Pain & suffering 15 Rs.1,44,000/-x15=Rs.21,60,000/- Rs.9,43,922/- Rs.2,00,000/- Transportation charge Rs.50,000/- Future medical expenses NIL Special diet Attendant charges Rs.4000/- Rs.5000/- Loss of amenities and enjoyment of life + loss of expectation of life Rs. 3,00,000/- Total Rs. 36,62,922/- 20. The Insurance company is directed to pay total compensation of Rs.36,62,922/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim application. Payment shall be made within one month from the date of the order before the learned Tribunal and the same shall be disbursed to the claimant on proper identification. Out of total compensation amount received by the claimant, 25% has been deducted as his contributory negligence which shall be Rs.9,15,730.50/-. This Misc. Appeal is accordingly, allowed.
Arguments
: Mr. Prabhat Kr. Sinha, Advocate Mr. Sohibjot Singh, Advocate : Mr. Uday Choudhary, Advocate ----- Oral Order 12 / Dated : 29.10.2025 1. The claimant is in appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 76 of 2017, whereby and whereunder a compensation of Rs. 21,17,941/- has been awarded in favour of the claimant. 2. As per the claim case, claimant-Md. Sahabuddin was driving his truck (Container) bearing registration No. JH-12-D-4272 on the fateful night on 03.11.2016, which met with an accident with Trailer bearing registration No. UP-25-AT-5725. The accident is attributed to the wrong parking of Trailer bearing No. UP-25-AT-5725. 3. In the accident, the complainant sustained critical injury and underwent treatment initially at Soro Hospital, Balasore and was referred to Maa Nursing Home, Balasore for further treatment from there he was taken for treatment to Relax Hospital Ranihat, Cuttack. He was finally treated at Shanti Memorial Hospital Pvt. Ltd., Cuttack in which one of his legs had to be amputated below knee. As per the permanent disability certificate, the claimant had suffered 85% permanent physical disability. 4. The owner and insurer of the stationary Trailer bearing No. UP-25-AT- 5725, which was said to be wrongly parked, appeared and contested the case by filing their separate written statements. It was, inter alia, 2025:JHHC:32660 contended that the accident was the outcome of rash and negligent driving by the driver who was the claimant and that his claim for monthly income of Rs. 20,000/- per month was exaggerated. 5. Learned Tribunal framed the following issues: Issue No. III – Whether the injury of the injured Md. Sahabuddin resulted from the vehicular accident dated 03.11.2016 at about 3.00 AM at Jamujhadi on NH-5 near Tarini Temple (under P.S.-Simulia, Dist.-Balasore, Orissa) caused due to driving the offending vehicle Trailer bearing registration No. UP25AT5725 rashly and negligently? Issue No. IV – Whether the injured Md. Sahabuddin was driving the Container bearing No. JH12D4272, himself responsible for causing the accident? If so, to what extent injured was negligent? Issue No. V – Whether the offending vehicle Trailer bearing registration No. UP25AT5725 was duly insured on the material date and time and whether owner has violated any of the terms and condition of the insurance policy? Issue No.VI – Whether the claimant is entitled for compensation arising out of this motor vehicle accident and if so, as to what extent, and against whom of the O.Ps? 6. Learned Tribunal recorded a finding that there was contributory negligence on the part of the claimant to the extent of 25% and, accordingly, deducted the compensation. It was also held that the functional disability suffered by the claimant was to the extent of 60 % and taking monthly income of Rs. 12,000/-. The compensation was awarded for permanent disability. 7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that as per the permanent disability certificate, the physical disablement was to the extent of 85% and considering the occupation of the driver, amputation of one leg amounted to 100% physical disability. Learned Tribunal grossly erred in assessing the functional disability to the extent of only 60%. 8. It is further argued that the claimant suffered critical injury and underwent treatment for six months in different hospitals, but the compensation under the head of “pain and suffering” has been 2 2025:JHHC:32660 awarded only Rs. 2 Lakh. Further, a meagre sum of Rs.3,000/- has been awarded as transportation charges. 9. No award has been given under the head of loss of income and under the head of future prospect. It is also submitted that the FIR was lodged against the driver of the offending vehicle bearing Registration No. UP-25-AT-5725. The charge-sheet was also submitted against the driver of the said vehicle. The only eye witness is the claimant, who was examined as CW 1, and stated in para-5 of his examination-in- chief as deposed on affidavit that the accident occurred due to sudden turn being taken by the driver of the offending vehicle. This part of the deposition remained unrebutted in the cross-examination. 10. It is argued that in absence of any evidence of rash and negligent driving by the claimant, it was not open to the learned Tribunal to have attributed contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the truck of the claimant. 11. Despite notice being issued, the owner of the vehicle has not appeared and the instant misc. appeal is being heard ex-parte. 12. Learned counsel on behalf of the Insurance Company has defended the award. So far functional disability is concerned, the claimant was also the owner-cum-driver of the vehicle which met with an accident, therefore physical disability did not completely deprive him of the income. It is also argued that learned Tribunal has specified specific and cogent reasons while awarding 25% contributory negligence on the part of the claimant. Even if it is assumed that the truck was not properly parked, the claimant should have exercised abandon caution to avoid the accident.
Decision
Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) AKT/Satendra Uploaded 31.10.2025 5