Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 448 (ALL)

ANIL KUMAR GUPTA v. RAVINDRA KUMAR GUPTA

2018-02-19

A.P.SAHI, SARAL SRIVASTAVA

body2018
JUDGMENT & ORDER : SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard Sri P. K. Pandey, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Saurabh Srivastava, learned counsel for the New India Assurance Company and Sri Alok Mishra holding brief of Sri S. K. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent/Corporation. 2. The claimant-appellant preferred the present appeal against the judgment and order dated 29.11.2002 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Special Judge/Anti Corruption), Meerut whereby the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 2,00,000/- along-with 9% interest as compensation to the appellant. 3. The present appeal is confined to the appellant no. 1 only, even though the appellant no. 2 has joined as a party. 4. The appellant instituted a claim petition praying for a compensation of Rs. 21,85,000/- along with 18 % interest per annum for the injuries alleged to have been suffered by him in an accident on 04.04.1997 by bus no. U. P. 15-C 8908. The appellants pleaded that he had suffered grievous injuries and his left leg got crushed in the accident. He had undergone treatment for sufficiently long time. He had become permanently disable due to the injuries. The appellant was Collection Amin in the Revenue Department at Tehsil Meerut and was drawing a salary of Rs. 4,000/- per month. On account of the injuries suffered in the accident, his revenue collection had gone down, due to which he was under suspension, and ultimately he had submitted an application for voluntary retirement as he was not able to discharge his duties properly. 5. The insurance Company contested the claim petition by filing written statement. It denied its liability to pay any compensation, and further pleaded that the compensation claimed by the claimant/appellant is highly excessive and exorbitant. 6. The U. P. S. R. T. C. contested the claim petition by filing written statement; it denied its liability to pay any compensation. It pleaded that the bus was being plied by it under an agreement with the owner of the bus. The bus was insured with the United India Assurance Company, and therefore, the liability, if any, to pay compensation is of the United India Insurance Company. 7. The owner of the bus did not file any written statement. The tribunal proceeded ex-parte against him. 8. The Tribunal on the basis of pleadings between the parties framed several issues. In the present appeal, the appellant has challenged the finding on issue no. 7. The owner of the bus did not file any written statement. The tribunal proceeded ex-parte against him. 8. The Tribunal on the basis of pleadings between the parties framed several issues. In the present appeal, the appellant has challenged the finding on issue no. 4 regarding quantification of compensation. 9. The Tribunal held that the injuries suffered by the claimant were of a serious nature and awarded a lump-sum amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation with 9% interest. 10. Challenging the finding of the Tribunal on the quantification of compensation, the counsel for the appellant has urged that the Tribunal while deciding the issue no. 4 regarding quantification of compensation has completely given go by to the settled principle of law in awarding compensation in case of fatal injuries. He submits that in the case of injury, the compensation is to be awarded under the heads namely pecuniary damages and non-pecuniary damages. He further urges that the claimant was Collection Amin and was drawing a salary of Rs. 4,000/- per month, and the claimant had to seek voluntary retirement on account of injuries suffered by him. Thus, there is total loss of earning due to injuries suffered by him. He further submits that the appellant was not granted increment and was denied the promotion; therefore, the appellant is entitled for future prospect. He has further submitted that the appellant is entitled for expenses incurred in the medical treatment, special diet and transportation and pain and suffering. In respect of this submission, the counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court Sanjay Verma Vs. Haryana Roadways, (2014) 1 TAC 711. 11. The counsel for the appellant lastly contended that the claimant was aged about 37 years at the time of accident, and therefore, the compensation should be computed by applying the multiplier of 15. 12. Per contra, the counsel for the respondent has submitted that the Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation in the facts of the present case. He submits that the appellant was placed under suspension for the reason of inefficient working which had nothing to do with the injuries suffered by the claimant-appellant in the accident. He further contends that there is no evidence on record to indicate that the request of the appellant for grant of voluntary retirement had been accepted, and he was given voluntary retirement. He further contends that there is no evidence on record to indicate that the request of the appellant for grant of voluntary retirement had been accepted, and he was given voluntary retirement. He further submits that the medical and transportation bills filed by the appellant were not proved and as such those bills cannot be relied upon to grant medical expenses and transportation charges. 13. We have heard the rival submission of the parties and have also perused the original record of the Court below. 14. We find that the Tribunal without appreciating the principles for the grant of compensation in the case of injury suffered in motor accident awarded Rs. 2,00,000/- lump-sum. The record reveals that the appellant was working as Collection Amin, and was drawing a salary of Rs. 4,000/- per month which was not disputed by the respondents. Therefore, we hold the income of the claimant/appellant to be Rs. 4,000/- P. M. for the purposes of the computation of compensation. 15. The record further reveals that the appellant had filed disability certificate issued by Chief Medical Officer which states that the appellant had suffered 50% loss earning capacity due to injuries. The disability certificate was proved by PW-2 Dr. S. M. Sharma. The respondent did not lead any evidence to rebut the disability certificate and therefore, we hold that the claimant-appellant had suffered 50% loss earning capacity on account of injuries suffered by him in the accident. 16. It is not disputed that the appellant was Collection Amin, and was in a Government job. The appellant could not discharge his duties properly on account of injuries suffered by him in the accident, due to which he had to submit an application for voluntary retirement. It is not clear from the record, as to whether, his application for voluntary retirement was accepted by the authorities, but the fact remains that the nature of duties of the appellant was field duty, and the injuries had reduced his working capacity. Thus, it is obvious that the claimant had suffered loss of promotional avenues due to injuries. 17. The Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Verma has held that the theory of future prospect is attracted in the case of injury. The apex court in the said case relied upon the judgment of the Reshma Kumari Vs. Thus, it is obvious that the claimant had suffered loss of promotional avenues due to injuries. 17. The Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Verma has held that the theory of future prospect is attracted in the case of injury. The apex court in the said case relied upon the judgment of the Reshma Kumari Vs. Madan Mohan, (2009) 13 SCC 422 and allowed 50% as an addition to the income of the claimant towards future prospect considering the age of claimant which was 25 years. 18. We have held that the claimant/appellant has suffered promotional avenue due to injuries, therefore, following the judgment of the Apex court in the case Sanjay Verma , we award 50% towards future prospect as the age of the claimant was 37 years. 19. We have perused the record of the Court below which reveals that the original medical bill to the tune of Rs. 2,30,389/- had been filed by the claimant-appellant. The respondent did not dispute the medical bills filed by the claimant nor had led any evidence to rebut the same. Since all the medical bills have been filed in original, and have not been disputed by the respondents, therefore, we award Rs. 2,30,389/- towards medical expenses. So far as, the transportation charges and expenses incurred on special diet are concerned, we find that the hand written receipts of the amount of Rs. 84,200/- and Rs. 35,000/- respectively have been filed. Those receipts were not proved by the appellant. But, considering the nature of injuries and the period of treatment, it is obvious that the appellant had spent considerable amount towards transportation charges and special diet. Thus, in the facts of the present case, We deem it proper to award Rs. 50,000/- towards transportation charges and Rs. 20,000/- towards special diet. 20. Now, coming to the question of award towards pain and suffering, we find that the claimant has suffered grievous injuries resulting in shortening of leg which has caused the mental agony and pain which the claimant has to undergone for the rest of his life. Thus, we award Rs. 1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering. We further provide that the enhanced amount of compensation shall carry 7% interest from the date of the institution of the claim petition. 21. Thus, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. Thus, we award Rs. 1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering. We further provide that the enhanced amount of compensation shall carry 7% interest from the date of the institution of the claim petition. 21. Thus, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. The Insurance Company is directed to pay the enhanced amount of compensation after adjusting the amount already paid under the award to the appellant-claimant within a period of three months. 22. There shall be no orders as to costs.