Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1065 (JHR)

Awadhesh Kumar Mishra v. Sunil Kumar Jain

2009-07-31

JAYA ROY, M.Y.EQBAL

body2009
Order This appeal by the claimant has been filed for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hazaribagh in Claim Case NO.115 of 2002. 2. The claimant-appellant filed the claim case claiming compensation of Rs. Three lacs for the serious and grievous injury caused to his minor son in a motor vehicle accident. On the fateful day, the son of the appellant, namely, Avinash Kumar Mishra, aged 12 years, was returning home on his bicycle. On the way, he was dashed by a truck and received serious injuries on his person. The injured was shifted to hospital for treatment. The claimant's case is that in fact he incurred heavy expenses for the treatment of his son in various hospitals at Hazaribagh, Ranchi and Vellore. Because of the injuries, the injured became permanently disabled to the extent of 65% and he was unable to move without a crutch. The Tribunal after considering the evidence has come to the conclusion that because of the accident, the injured became permanently disabled to the extent of 65%. However, the Tribunal assessed compensation of Rs. 75,000/- only. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that because of the injury, the injured has become permanently disabled inasmuch as he can move only by one leg with the help of Baisakhi. Learned counsel submitted that the appellant, who is father, spent a huge amount on the treatment of his son so that the leg could be saved from amputation. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company, on the other hand, produced before Lis a photograph of the injured and submitted that the leg has not been amputated or the injured has become crippled. According to the learned counsel, it is not the case of amputation of leg, but certainly the amount of compensation is in a lower side. 5. After considering the facts and evidence of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel, we are of the definite view that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is unreasonable and unjustified. Admittedly, because of the injury, the injured became permanently disabled to the extent of 65% and he cannot lead a normal life because of the grievous injury in the leg. In that view of the matter, the compensation of Rs. Two lacs inclusive of interest shall be just and reasonable to meet the ends of justice. 6. Admittedly, because of the injury, the injured became permanently disabled to the extent of 65% and he cannot lead a normal life because of the grievous injury in the leg. In that view of the matter, the compensation of Rs. Two lacs inclusive of interest shall be just and reasonable to meet the ends of justice. 6. For the reasons aforesaid, this appeal is allowed and the amount of compensation is enhanced to Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rs. Two lacs). Needless to say that the amount of compensation shall be used solely for the purpose of treatment and education of the injured and the direction of the Tribunal in this regard shall be followed.