w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Sagarmal Agrawal With Ajay Kumar v/s Bhartiya Construction & Others

    Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 313 & 314 of 1997 (R)

    Decided On, 15 May 2002

    At, High Court of Jharkhand

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.Y. EQBAL & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. PRASAD

    For the Appellant: S.N. Lal, Advocate. For the Respondents: Alok Lal, Advocate.



Judgment Text

H.S. Prasad, J.

1. Both these appeals, filed under Section 10 of the Letters Patent, involving common questions of law and fact, have been heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

2. These appeals are directed against the impugned judgment dated 25.4.97 passed in M.A. Nos. 615 and 616 of 1990 (R), whereby the learned Single Judge rejected M.A. No. 615 with modification in the interest by raising it from 6% to 12% and partly allowed M.A. No. 616/90 (R) by enhancing the quantum of compensation from Rs. 37,000/-to Rs. 60,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.

3. The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass. The claimants-appellants are the injured persons and they filed claim case being MJC Nos. 34 and 35 of 1985 respectively. Both the claimants are father and son respectively. Both the appellants were travelling on a Rajdoot motorcycle on 4.11.84 bearing registration No. BRX 2381 from Jugsalai to Haldipokhar and the motorcycle was being driven by Sagarmal Agrawal, who is father of another claimant-plaintiff and the son Ajay Kumar Agrawal was a pillion rider. When the appellants reached near village Tiruldin at about 3.30 p.m. on Tata-Chaibasa Road, a truck bearing registration No. BRX 4260 came in a high speed from the opposite direction and first dashed against another truck bearing registration No. BHI 9541 and there after dashed the motorcycle, as a result of which both the occupants of the motorcycle sustained severe injuries. They were admitted to the hospital and they remained in the hospital for some time as indoor patients. Appellant Sagarmal Agrawal sustained fractured injury on his legs and some other Injuries on different parts of the body but severe injury was on the leg. Appellant Ajay Kumar Agrawal had sustained more injuries than his father. His legs were also fractured and he remained in the hospital from 4.11.84 to 13.3.85. It is admitted that accident did take place and the offending vehicle was responsible for the accident, The vehicle in question was insured with the opposite party No, 3, M/s New India Assurance Company Ltd. on the alleged date of occurrence.

4. At the trial stage witnesses were examined and after considering the case of the parties the learned Claims Tribunal awarded as sum of Rs. 37,500/- in favour of appellant Sagarmal Agrawal and Rs. 37,500/- to Ajay Kumar Agrawal. Both the appellants preferred appeals against the award of the learned Claims Tribunal and in the appeals being M.A. Nos. 615 and 616 of 1990 (R) the learned Single Judge, so far as appellant Sagarmal Agrawal is concerned, did not alter the findings of the learned Claims Tribunal but modified the award and allowed the interest @ 12% per annum and so far as appellant Ajay Kumar Agrawal is concerned, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the amount of compensation of Rs. 37,500/- is not sufficient and enhanced the same to Rs. 60,000/- with 12% interest. Being aggrieved by the impugned order of the learned Single Judge appellant Sagarmal Agrawal preferred LPA No. 313/97 (R) and appellant Ajay Kumar Agrawal preferred LPA No. 314/94 (R).

5. Mr. S.N. Lal, learned counsel appearing for both the appellants, submitted that the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal and the impugned order of the learned Single Judge are not correct as both the injured have sustained severe injuries and for the injuries sustained by Sagarmal Agrawal, at least a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- should have been awarded and for the injuries sustained by appellant Ajay Kumar Agrawal, who till now could not marry as a result of permanent disablement caused to him, as he cannot move his feet nor sit cross legged and for which at least a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- should have been awarded. He further pointed out that injuries are of such nature as they required permanent treatment till his life. He further pointed out that no amount has been allowed to each of the appellants for the future medical expenses, pain and sufferings, unusual deprivation and later on earning capacity etc. He further pointed out that appellant Ajay Kumar Agrawal should have been awarded much more amount than the amount has been allowed because his life has become a dead one as he is not in a position to many and he is still unmarried and he cannot sit cross-legged and perform his duty in normal way. Appellant Sagarmal Agrawal has claimed Rs. 1,65,000/- whereas appellant Ajay Kumar Agrawal has claimed Rs. 1,60,000/- as compensation. The learned Claims Tribunal and the learned Single Judge, after considering their claims, have observed that it is not clear from their case as to what amount of loss each one of them have sustained. The learned Court below have also considered the Judgment of the Apex Court reported in 1995 (1) SCC 281, which is also relied by the learned counsel for the appellants. The learned Claims Tribunal, while considering the case of the appellants, came to the finding that appellants have not adduced evidence as to how much of loss they sustained as a result of injury and similarly they have not spelt out the quantum of loss of their earnings due to the accident and, therefore, the learned Claims Tribunal, on the basis of evidence adduced by the appellants, allowed compensation, which was subsequently modified by the learned Single Judge when appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 were filed.

6. We have gone through the judgment of t

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

he learned Claims Tribunal as well as the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has given a very reasoned judgment and there is nothing which requires interference. The learned Single Judge has rightly modified the amount of compensation of appellant Ajay Kumar Agrawal and enhanced the same from Rs. 37,500/- to Rs. 60,000/- and similarly allowed the interest rate in the case of both the appellants from 6% to 12%. 7. We, therefore, find not merit in these appeals and they are accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
O R