Sri Rajkumar Das vs Sriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.

Biswaroop Chowdhury, J:

The appellant before this Court was a claimant in a case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 and is aggrieved by the Judgment and Award dated 01-10-2024 passed by Learned Additional District Judge 6^th Court Paschim Medinipur in MAC Case No-363 of 2018.

The case of the claimant/appellant before the Learned Trial Court may be summed up thus;

On 04-05-2018 at about 5.00 a.m. while the victim Sri Raj Kumar Das was going towards Salboni through NH-60 road by his motorcycle on his left side and after crossing the Dhaba of Debu while victim tried to stop his motorcycle for nature call near Dhabasole poal under Salboni P.S. at that time one Truck bearing No. WB-23/6713 was coming from the side of Bhadutala towards Salboni with very high speed with rash and negligent manner dashed the victim. As a result the victim was thrown out from his motorcycle and wheels of Truck had gone upon his right leg. As a result the victim was seriously injured. Immediately with the help of local people he was taken to Medinipur Medicial College and Hospital for treatment. Thereafter he was shifted to Bhubaneswar Hi-Tech Medical College and Hospital and treated there for long period of time and major operation done there.

In the operation his right leg has been amputed above knee. Due to this situation it is not possible for him to do any work and he is totally disabled person.

The accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle bearing No. WB-23/6713 (Truck).

Pursuant to filing of this case notice was issued upon the opposite parties. Opposite party vehicle owner did not contest the case. However opposite party Insurance Company contested the case by filing written statement. ISSUES were framed and evidence was adduced. Learned Trial Judge upon considering the evidence adduced and upon hearing the Learned Advocates was pleased to dispose the claim case by observing and directing as follows:-

The appellant being aggrieved by the Judgment and Award passed by the Learned Trial Judge, has come up with the instant appeal.

Heard Learned Advocate for the appellant/claimant and Learned Advocate for the respondent/Insurance Company. Perused the evidence adduced and materials on record.

Learned Advocate for the appellant submits that the Learned Trial Judge erred in considering the percentage of disability to be 80% instead of 100%. Learned Advocate further submits that the future prospect was also not considered by the Learned Judge. Learned Advocate also submits that the monthly income of the claimant ought to have been considered as Rs. 9,000/-as the employer deposed but the Learned Trial Judge erred in not considering the same.

Learned Advocate for the respondent/Insurance Company submits that certificate of disablement was issued after 4 years of accident thus it may not be relied upon.

Learned Advocate further submits that GST number is also not there of the business of employer of claimant. Learned Advocate also submits that compensation awarded is reasonable and interference may not be made. The following decisions are relied upon by the Learned Advocate for the appellant/claimant.

Pratap Narain Singh Deo VS Srinivas Sobata and Anr. Reported in AIR-1976. S.C. 222.

Shankar Dutt VS United India Insurance Co. Ltd and ors. Civil Appeal No. 8714 of 2026. (Supreme Court of India)

Chandra Magera VS Santosh A. Ganchari and Anr. Reported in 2026 ACJ-977.

Laxmisree VS Managing Director KSRTC Depot Bengaluru Reported in 2026 ACJ-1009.

Jagdish VS Mohan Reported in AIR-2018. S.C. P-1347.

Learned Advocate for the respondent Insurance Company relies upon the following Judicial decisions:-

Raj Kumar VS Ajay Kumar and Anr. Reported in (2011) 1 SCC. 343.

TJ. Parmeshwarappa VS New India Assurance. 2023 (1) TAC 108 S.C.

Anoop Maheshwari VS Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. MANU/SC/1233/2025

Sunil Kumar Khushwaha VS Katragadda Satyararyaxa and Ors. MANU/SC/0644/2025.

Upon hearing the learned Advocates and considering the Judicial Decisions relied upon one issue which is settled is that while considering the nature of disability and consequence of loss of income earning capacity it is to be decided as to whether the disability is with regard to a particular part of the body or whole body. Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earning would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. Thus it is to be considered as to whether there is loss of job due to such disability.

In the instant case the claimant was a carpenter which is established by evidence of both P.W. 1 and P.W.-5. Further with regard to income of the claimant it is clear from evidence of P.W. 5 that salary of the claimant was Rs. 9,000/- per month. Although from evidence it appears that the claimant/victim is no more working as carpenter in the establishment of P.W. 5 but the fact he has suffered disability on his leg and not hand it may give him an opportunity to do some work and earn some income. Thus, with regard to percentage of disability the learned Trial Judge did not commit any error in considering the same to be 80%.

Thus in the event income of the claimant is considered to be Rs. 9,000/-per month the future prospect of 30% being added the total monthly income comes to Rs. 11,700/-. The annual income comes to Rs. 1,40,400/-. The multiplier of 16 being applied loss of income comes to Rs. 22,46,400/-. As the percentage of disability is 80% loss of income is Rs. 17,97,120/-. Further the claimant is entitled to get Rs. 1,13,876 on account of medical expenses and Rs. 200,000/- on account of pain and sufferings, loss of amenity loss of expectation of life. Thus total compensation comes to Rs. 21,10,996/- by arithmetical calculation. However this Court is of the view that compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/- is just and reasonable.

Hence this Appeal FMA-No. 785/2026 stands disposed. The Judgment and Award dated 01-10-2024 passed by Learned Additional District Judge 6^th Court Paschim Medinipur in MAC Case No. 363 of 2018 stands modified to the extent that the appellant is entitled to compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/-. The respondent no-1 Insurance Company shall deposit Rs. 20,00,000/- along with interest @6% per annum from date of filing claim case till today. Such deposit shall be made within 8 weeks from the date of communication of the Order. In the event compensation awarded by Trial Court is paid or deposited, balance deposit be made.

The appellant/claimant will be entitled to withdraw the compensation upon compliance of necessary formalities.

Deficit Court fees on enhanced compensation be paid within 4 weeks.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, should be made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities.