Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 259 (JHR)

Suresh Toppo v. Baikunth Singh

2023-02-28

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

body2023
JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. 1. Heard Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Mukesh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for respondent no. 2. 2. Notice upon respondent no. 1 has been effected, however till date nobody has appeared on behalf of respondent no. 1 and that is why, this appeal has been heard in absence of respondent no. 1. 3. This appeal has been preferred being dissatisfied with the judgment/award dated 25.03.2017 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranchi in M.A.C.T. Case No. 20 of 2009 for enhancement of the awarded amount. 4. On 29.04.1999, the appellant/applicant namely Suresh Toppo while returning to his house at Lohardaga after attending a marriage ceremony at Village-Lita Toli, Gumla along with his relatives travelling in the offending bus bearing registrtion no. BR-14P-5455 while he reached near Malar river bridge, Piska, Nagari on N.H.23, the said bus capsized to its left side due to rash and negligent driving resulting some passengers of the bus died and the appellant/applicant injured suffered grievous injuries in his right hand and he was taken to R.M.C.H. Ranchi for treatment where his right arm elbow has amputated. He incurred huge expenses over his treatment, due to amputation of his right arm elbow and he has suffered permanent disability and has become unable to do his routine work. 5. The appellant/applicant earlier filed Compensation Case No. 117/1999, which was dismissed for default vide order dated 20.07.2006 and, thereafter, no any petition for restoration of that case was filed and this instant compensation case has been in the year 2009. The learned tribunal after framing the issue has decided the case on contest and has directed to pay sum of Rs. 1,57,074/-. 6. Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned tribunal has not considered permanent disability of the appellant/applicant in right perspective and he has only granted sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- in the head of Loss of enjoyment of his life. He submits that the same is required to be enhanced. He relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 2010 ACJ 2867 and submits that in this case, the matter travelled up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to allow the sum of Rs. 9,06,000/-. He relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 2010 ACJ 2867 and submits that in this case, the matter travelled up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to allow the sum of Rs. 9,06,000/-. By way of relying upon this judgment, he submits that the awarded amount may kindly be increased. He further submits that the interest is provided from the date of the award and responsibility for delay in disposal of the claim case has been fastened upon the appellant/applicant without discussing anything and in that view of the matter, interest part is also required to be increased. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Mukesh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company submits that the occurrence took place on 29.04.1999 and the appellant/applicant filed the Compensation Case No. 117/1999 in which sum of Rs. 25,000/- was directed to be paid to the appellant towards compensation in light of Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. He further submits that subsequently that case has been dismissed for default vide order dated 20.07.2006. He submits that in spite of filing any petition for restoration of that case, the present compensation case has been filed in the year 2009 and the trial concluded in the year 2017. He submits that due to laches on the part of the appellant/applicant, the learned trial court has rightly held that responsibility for delaying the trial was upon the appellant/applicant. He also submits that the appellant/applicant in his own evidence, has admitted that on the basis of half share the agricultural work is being done. He further submits that the learned tribunal has provided the amount under different headings and there is no illegality in the award and the same may not be interfered by this Court. 8. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the judgment/award passed by the learned tribunal and finds that the learned tribunal has framed 6 issues to decide the claim case. While deciding issue no. 8. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the judgment/award passed by the learned tribunal and finds that the learned tribunal has framed 6 issues to decide the claim case. While deciding issue no. 5, the learned tribunal has considered that the appellant/applicant was compelled to remain in the hospital for a month and he has suffered 50% permanent disability in his right arm elbow as assessed by the Medical Board and he has incurred expenses the amount of Rs. 70,000/- over his treatment. The learned tribunal has also considered that the appellant/applicant was a retired Chief Ticket Inspector from the Indian Railway and he was earning amount of Rs. 15,000/- per month as pension. The learned tribunal has granted sum of Rs. 7,074/- towards expenses incurred upon his treatment considering Ext.6 to 6/48. The learned tribunal has further granted sum of Rs. 50,000/- in the head of Pain and Suffering and granted sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- in the head of Loss of enjoyment of his life and total comes to Rs. 1,57,074/-. It appears that the learned tribunal after appreciating the evidence on record as well as exhibits, has passed such order. It was not a case that the appellant/applicant was a self employed person and he was earning amount of Rs. 15,000/- per month as pension and the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings would depend upon the effect and impact of permanent disability on his earning capacity. The learned tribunal has already granted sum of Rs. 50,000/- in the head of Pain and Suffering and Rs. 1,00,000/- in the head of Loss of enjoyment of his life and the expenses of Rs. 7,074/- incurred in the treatment has also been allowed. Considering that earlier compensation case was dismissed for default, which was not restored on behalf of the appellant/applicant and subsequently the present claim case has been filed and in that view of the matter, the interest part has been rightly awarded w.e.f. the date of the award by the learned tribunal. It is not a case that present appellant/applicant came from economical weaker section. In interfering in such a case, totality of the case and claimant's socio-economic background is to be considered and if it is proved, the Courts are liberal in enhancing the amount. It is not a case that present appellant/applicant came from economical weaker section. In interfering in such a case, totality of the case and claimant's socio-economic background is to be considered and if it is proved, the Courts are liberal in enhancing the amount. In the case in hand, the appellant/applicant has himself admitted that the agricultural work is being executed with the help of other person on the basis of half of the produce. 9. So far as the judgment relied by Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall, learned counsel for the appellant in Arvind Kumar Mishra (supra) is concerned, that was on different footing and in that case, injured was aged about 25 years and he was a student of engineering and he had received diffused multi-focal damage of brain with haemorrhage, paralysis of right upper limb, loss of vision in right eye, amputation of right hand and fracture of left tibia and he remained in coma for two months and took treatment in four hospitals and underwent many surgical operations and in that scenario, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has interfered and enhanced the amount in the case of Arvind Kumar Mishra (supra), relied by the learned counsel for the appellant. That case is not helping the appellant as fact of that case was on differing footing. 10. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, the Court comes to a conclusion that no case of enhancement is made out. 11. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. 12. Let the L.C.R. be sent back to the concerned learned court forthwith.