Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 438 (JHR)

Bharat Lal Agrawal v. Shanta Roy

2001-07-10

D.N.PRASAD

body2001
ORDER Deoki Nandan Prasad, J. 1. This Misc. Appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 30.7.1991 passed by 3rd Additional Judicial Commissioner. Ranchi-cum-Motor Vehicles Act Tribunal, Ranchi in Compensation Case No. 36 of 1989 whereby and whereunder the learned Judicial Commissioner awarded a sum of Rs. 20,500/- with interest @ 12 per annum from the date of filing of claim application. 2. The short facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 14.12.1988 the applicant was going on a scooter from Ashok Nagar to Doranda and in the way near Band More a car bearing registration No. BHV 6055 coming rashly and negligently from A.G. More side and dashed the scooter of the applicant causing a serious multiple injuries. Doranda PS Case No. 544 of 1988 was registered against the driver of the said car. The applicant suffered mental agony and remained under complete bed rest as well as huge amount over the treatment was spended. Even after discharge from the hospital, he remained bed rest. The applicant, who was under plaster, had to lace a lot of problem. On account of multiple grievous injury sustained by the applicant there was a permanent chance of disability and limping and the applicant filed the compensation case but the learned court below allowed the award amounting to Rs. 20,500/- instead of 2,00,000/-, witnesses were examined in the court below. Some of the documents including the prosecution report were also filed. After having heard both sides, the court below passed the judgment impugned against which this appeal has been filed for enhancement of the compensation. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the court below committed error in passing the judgment and awarded a meagre amount of compensation though the appellant is suffering from permanent disability and huge amount was spent in the treatment. It is also submitted that low amount was awarded by the learned tribunal which was based on wrong principles of calculation. It is also argued that the learned court below failed to appreciate the mental pain and agony and others suffering of the appellant and as such the compensation awarded by the court below is fit to be enhanced. 4. It is also submitted that low amount was awarded by the learned tribunal which was based on wrong principles of calculation. It is also argued that the learned court below failed to appreciate the mental pain and agony and others suffering of the appellant and as such the compensation awarded by the court below is fit to be enhanced. 4. ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company argued that there is no illegality in the impugned judgment as the learned court below, after considering the evidence on record, awarded just and proper compensation. It is also submitted that there is no document to show that the appellant was suffering from permanent disablement and the medical certificate produced by the appellant is procured papers for the purpose of compensation as no any doctor said to have treated has been examined to substantiate the claim. 5. In support of the case for compensation, the appellant examined only two witnesses. AW 1 is applicant himself. According to him, he was going towards Hinoo on his own scooter when the car bearing registration No. BHV 6055 dashed against his scooter as the driver of the said car was driving rashly and negligently and due to the said accident, he sustained serious injuries and there was fracture in his knee. He was treated in the hospital under Dr B.P. Singh and he remained in traction for 22 days. He claimed to had also consulted Dr. Mukhopadhyay and he suggested for operation which was done. According to him, a sum of Rs. 70-80 thousands was spended in his treatment but at this stage it may be noted here that there is no document to support that Dr. Mukhopadhyaya had done the nailing and his leg has been shortened. It is also obvious from the record that some of the prescription and certificates have been filed but none of the doctors was examined on behalf of the applicant to substantiate the said treatment. One certificate has been produced granted by Dr. Amit Mukherjee (Ext. 7) which reads as under : This is to certify that Mr. B.L. Agrawal sustained a fracture (L) femur. According to him on 14.12.1988 he was inverted by one Nailing by Professor B. Bhattarcharya in May, 1989. Limb was 5 c.m., shortened." 6. One certificate has been produced granted by Dr. Amit Mukherjee (Ext. 7) which reads as under : This is to certify that Mr. B.L. Agrawal sustained a fracture (L) femur. According to him on 14.12.1988 he was inverted by one Nailing by Professor B. Bhattarcharya in May, 1989. Limb was 5 c.m., shortened." 6. This certificate obviously will not help the appellant as it was granted according to his own saying to the doctor. Not a chit of paper has been produced to show that Dr. Mukhopadhyaya had done the nailing. Thus the story of permanent disablement appears to be doubtful. It is also apparent that the learned court below considered all the prescriptions and cash memos produced by the appellant and has scrutinised the said cash memos in detail. Nothing cogent coming forward to disagree with the decision passed by the learned court below. Unless there is apparent error in the finding of the lower Court, this Court should be reluctant in the matter of enhancement of award. Evidently the lower Court scrutinised and considered all the documents including cash memos produced by the appellant which does not require for interference. 7. The learned court below has rightly awarded the amount of compensation in favour of the appellant with an interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the application. In the result, I do not find any merit in the appeal which is accordingly dismissed but without costs. 8. Appeal dismissed.