Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 305 (JHR)

Sunil Kumar Kushwaha v. Katragadda Satyanarayana

2023-03-14

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

body2023
JUDGMENT : 1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant claimant being dissatisfied with the Award dated 20.06.2017 passed by Presiding Officer MVACT, Hazaribagh in Claim Case No.23 of 2011 whereby learned said court has awarded a sum of Rs.7,09,273/- and has directed the O.P.No.2 (Insurance company) to pay awarded amount with interest @ 6% payable from the date of framing of issue i.e. on 24.3.2014 in 30 days failing which the award shall carry interest @ 9% per annum after deducting ad-interim compensation if paid from the aforesaid amount. 2. The claim case has been filed on 07.09.2010 stating that at about 11.00 in the morning the injured/claimant Sunil Kumar Kushwaha along with his friend Manish Jha @ Lallu was coming from Goriyaribag after attending the market and when reached near football ground under Ramgarh Police Station a Truck bearing No.AP-16TA-3445 being driven very rashly and negligently by its driver dashed against them, as a result of which both received serious injuries. The injured/claimant Sunil Kumar Kushwaha received serious injury and compound fracture of the right leg. He was firstly admitted to Apurva Hospital and Research Centre Ranchi for immediate treatment but the doctors attending him referred to RIMS Ranchi for better treatment. The injured/claimant to get more better treatment got himself admitted to Raj Hospital Research Centre, Ranchi but the seriousness of injured the doctor referred him to Delhi, where he got admitted at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Rajendra Nager, New Delhi. He was admitted on 8th Sept. 2010 and remained there upto 45 days where his right leg amputated from knee. He was discharged from there on 23.10.2010. He was still under treatment with various other local doctors. It is further stated that he suffers from permanent injury and has to take full care and precaution and to remain in medical supervision for whole of life. The expenses of Rs.5 lac were made on his treatment. On this background, the learned Tribunal has decided the claim case and awarded a sum of Rs.7,09,273/- as disclosed herein above. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that considering the nature of injury the learned Tribunal has failed to provide any future prospects in the awarded amount which is future loss of income in the awarded amount which is required to be added therein and future medical expenses. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that considering the nature of injury the learned Tribunal has failed to provide any future prospects in the awarded amount which is future loss of income in the awarded amount which is required to be added therein and future medical expenses. On this background, he submits that there are case laws to that effect and in that view of the matter the award may kindly be modified. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the learned Tribunal has taken care of the same and has granted the award in terms of the well settled provisions of law and there is no error in the award and accordingly the appeal is fit to be dismissed. 5. In view of the above submission of the learned counsel for the parties the Court has gone through the judgment/ order of the learned Tribunal and finds that the learned Tribunal has directed to pay compensation under the following heads: Towards Medical expenses Amount spent On treatment inclusive of medicine/operation/etc. Rs.5,00,949/- Income during treatment for 1 and ½ month Rs. 19,624/- Towards conveyance (Air and Rail) Rs. 13,700/- Pain, suffering, hardship etc. Rs.1,75,000/- Total = Rs.7,09,273/- 6. Disability Certificate Ext.4/1 issued by the Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officer, Ramgarh suggest that the claimant suffered 50 % physical disability. It has come in the evidence of PW-3 injured was running a fruit shop and earning Rs.30,000/- per month and considering the I.T. Return Ext.5, the learned Tribunal has assessed the income and the yearly income assessed to the tune of Rs.1,56,996/-. In the case of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and Anr. , (2011) 1 SCC 343 , the Hon’ble Supreme court has held that where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation for loss of future earnings would depend upon the impact and effect of the permanent disability on his earning capacity. In paragraph nos.10 and 11 of the said judgment the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “10. The appellant/claimant herein suffered and has been amputated left leg. The appellant/claimant is not salaried person and he was self-employed who manages his business. He is definitely required to move around. The appellant can also not drive on his own which hinders his mobility. The appellant/claimant herein suffered and has been amputated left leg. The appellant/claimant is not salaried person and he was self-employed who manages his business. He is definitely required to move around. The appellant can also not drive on his own which hinders his mobility. This proves that the functional disability of the appellant will severely impact his earning capacity and 60% functional disability calculated by the learned tribunal is found to be true. 11. It is well settled that position of law that in cases of permanent disablement caused by a motor accident the claimant is entitled to not just future loss of income but also future prospects and in many cases it has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the High Court that just compensation must be interpreted in such a manner as to place the claimant as he was before the accident took place. In the case of “National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 the applicable 40% addition of future prospects was given compensation considering the age of 25 years.” 7. The appellant/claimant herein suffered and his right leg amputed from knee. The appellant is not salaried person and he was self-employed who manages his business. He is definitely required to move around. The appellant can also not drive on his own which hinders his mobility. This proves that the functional disability of the appellant will severely impact his earning capacity and 50 % functional disability calculated by the learned Tribunal is found to be true. 8. It is well settled position of law that in cases of permanent disablement caused by a motor accident the claimant is entitled to not just future loss of income but also future prospects and in many cases it has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the High Court that just compensation must be interpreted in such a manner as to place the claimant as he was before the accident took place. In the case of “National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 the applicable percentage of future prospects was calculated considering the age of the victim. 9. In the case in hand, the appellant’s age was 24 years and for that case the percentage shall 40 %. In the case of “National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 the applicable percentage of future prospects was calculated considering the age of the victim. 9. In the case in hand, the appellant’s age was 24 years and for that case the percentage shall 40 %. Accordingly this aspect of the matter is required to be taken care of and accordingly, the appellant is entitled for 40% additional for future prospect income in terms of the awarded amount which will be calculated on the basis which is given below: Annual Income - Rs. 1,56,996/- (X) 40 % Future Interest - Rs. 62,798/- = Rs. 2,19,794/- (X) 18 = Rs.39,56,292/ 2 = Rs.19,78,146/- 10. Considering that which type of future treatment is required by the appellant has not been proved before the learned Tribunal and what is the future medical assistance is required that has not been proved in that view of the matter that argument is not accepted by the Court. In view of the settled proposition of law the interest was required to be provided with effect from the date of filing of the application wherein the learned Tribunal has directed to pay the interest with effect from framing of issue and what is the basis of passing such order is not disclosed in the said award. It has not been proved that the issue was framed belatedly due to laches on the part of the appellant and in that view of the matter the interest shall be with effect from the date of filing of the application in terms of the award till the payment of the original award. 11. So far interest on enhanced amount is concerned, that will be with effect from the date of filing of the appeal on the enhanced amount. 12. Accordingly, M.A. No.517 of 2017 is allowed in the above terms and stands disposed of. 13. Pending petition if any stands disposed of. 14. Let the L.C.R be sent to the learned court concerned forthwith.