Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 158 (JHR)

S. Raman Rao v. Indian Copper Corporation Ltd.

2002-02-12

GURUSHARAN SHARMA, HARI SHANKAR PRASAD

body2002
JUDGMENT 1. Appellant was a skilled photographer by profession and was running Raos Studio at Chaibasa. On 14.7.1979, he was travelling on a Jeep (BRX-308) on Amda- Kharsawan Road, which dashed against a culvert and a tree and thereafter turned turtle with the four wheels up in the air. He sustained serious Injuries in the said accident, which affected his left eye and skull, as a result of which he was permanently deprived of his left eye. 2. The Tribunal, on his claim application filed under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 assessed a sum of Rs. 63,040/- to be paid to him as compensation. 3. He has filed the present appeal for enhancement of compensation on the ground that he lost his left eye and has become permanently disable. His right eye has also become considerably weak and it was not possible for him to undertake the type and nature of works in connection with his photographic business that he used to perform skillfully and dexterously prior to accident, 4. The Tribunal observed in the impugned order that there was no evidence brought on record to show that on account of aforesaid injury sustained, his artistic capacity or left sight was shorten. It was found that his studio business was not at all affected and he was running the studio smoothly. 5. On the basis of evidence on record, tribunal accepted permanent disability of the appellant on account of loss of vision of left eye. The appellant made three categories of claim (i) general damages of Rs. 1,75,000/-under four items (ii) special damages of Rs. 43,850.76 paise under twenty items, and (iii) future expenses of Rs. 22,200/-. In item No. 1 of general damages for intense paid and sufferings a sum of Rs. 25,000/- was claimed, which was allowed to the extent of Rs. 5,000/- only. In item No. 2 for permanent deprivation of left eye and its vision, a sum of Rs. 60,000/- was claimed but the tribunal granted a sum of Rs. 40,000/-. For loss of business due to inability to attend the Studio from 14.7.1979 to 31.12.1979, in item No. 3 a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was claimed, which was allowed In full and for future pecuniary loss, vide item No. 4, a sum of Rs. 80,000/-was claimed, which was disallowed. 40,000/-. For loss of business due to inability to attend the Studio from 14.7.1979 to 31.12.1979, in item No. 3 a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was claimed, which was allowed In full and for future pecuniary loss, vide item No. 4, a sum of Rs. 80,000/-was claimed, which was disallowed. In the category of special damages described in 20 items for a claim of Rs. 43,850.76 paise, a sum of Rs. 8040/- was allowed. Hence, total amount of Rs. 63,040/- was directed to be paid to the claimant as compensation. 6. We find no reason to interfere with the impugned order/award in this Appeal. 7. Mr. Roy, counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has failed to grant interest, although claim application was filed in the year 1980 and it was disposed of after 13 years in March, 1993. 8. A perusal of lower Court records reveals that owner insurer and driver of the Jeep had already appeared and filed their respective show cause in the beginning of the year 1981 itself and thereafter the claimant took about 12 years to conclude his evidence in support of his case and claim. His last witness (A.W. 5) was examined on 25.6.1992. Thereafter three witnesses were examined on behalf of the other side and claim application was disposed of on 12.3.1993. 9. In the aforesaid circumstances, we find that delay in disposal of claim case was caused at the instance of claimant himself and as such tribunal rightly not granted interest in his favour. 10. There is no merit in this appeal. It is dismissed accordingly. No costs.