IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
The Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Ltd. - Appellant
Vs.
Pankaj Kumar son of Tarkeshwar Prasad Agarwal - Respondent
Misc. Appeal No.505 of 2015 With Misc. Appeal No.178 of 2017
Decided On : 07-04-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. judgment on compensation award validity (Para 1) |
| 2. dispute regarding validity of driving license (Para 2 , 4) |
| 3. claimant's age and circumstances (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. arguments on compensation assessment (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. court's evaluation of disability impact (Para 9 , 10) |
| 6. assessment of additional compensation (Para 11) |
| 7. final order on compensation adjustment (Para 12) |
JUDGMENT :
GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
Insurance Company is in appeal against the judgment and award of compensation in Compensation Case No.187 of 2010 whereby and whereunder a compensation of Rs.5,05,530/- was awarded in favour of the claimant under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act.
2. The appeal is mainly on the ground that the vehicle was being driven by the driver- Mahesh Munda, who was not having valid driving license at the time of accident, as neither driving license was produced before the Tribunal nor details thereof was given in the claim application.
3. In order to clear the mist of doubt regarding validity of driving license, a report was called for vide order dated 29.11.2022 from D.T.O., Ranchi which has been received vide letter no.636 dated 20.03.2025, wherein it has been stated that Mahesh Munda had a valid driving license to drive LMV from 04.01.2006 and HGV from 07.06.2008 and license renewal validity was from 02.02.2009 to 01.02.2012.
4. In the present case, there is no dispute whatsoever that accident took place on 30th November, 2009 and therefore, the plea that driver was not having valid driving license, has no legs to stand.
Misc. Appeal No.505 of 2015 filed by the Insurance Company fails and is, accordingly, rejected. Statutory amount deposited at the time of filing of claim application to be remitted to be paid to the claimant and adjusted the final compensation amount.
Misc. Appeal No.178 of 2017
5. Misc. Appeal No.178 of 2017 has been filed by the injured/claimant inter alia for enhancement of the compensation amount on the ground that as per the pleadings, the definite case of the claimant/appellant was that at the time of accident he was 16 years of the age and was student of Class XI. As per para 5 of the claim application, no monthly income had been pleaded and it has been stated to be “not applicable”.
6. As per the claim case, the claimant suffered a motor accident involving truck bearing registration no. JH 02B 3472 resulting in grievous injury which caused permanent disablement to the extent of 40% as assessed in the disablement certificate (Exhibit 4). Learned Tribunal awarded the compensation under the following heads: -
| Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing, food and miscellaneous expenditure | Rs. 4,05,530/- |
| Future and medical expenses | Rs. 25.000/- |
| Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injury | Rs 50,000/- |
| Loss of amenities and loss of expectation of life or loss of prospects of marriage | Rs. 50,000/- |
| Total | Rs.5,30,530/- |
7. It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellant that only medical expenditure has been allowed in award, but no compensation has been assessed by taking the notional income of the deceased and also consequent future prospect with respect to it. Reliance is placed on V. Mekala Vs M. Malathi , (2014) 11 SCC 178 which involved a student aged 16 years, who had 75% disablement rendering both his legs dysfunctional.
8. It is submitted by learned counsel on behalf of Insurance Company, Mr. G.C. Jha that the deposition of the claimant demonstrates that their disability was superficial in nature and has not in any way adversely affected the earning capacity of the claimant or his future academic prospect. Claimant has deposed that the accident took place in 2009 when he was student of Class XI and thereafter, passing XIIth examination on 13.08.2011, he got duly admitted in BIT Mesra and at the time of his evidence, he was a student of BIT Mesra doing computer engineering.
9. Facts are not in dispute that the claimant met with
AI
The determination of compensation in personal injury cases must consider notional income and its impact on future earning capacity, especially in cases of permanent disability resulting from the acci....
Court held that absence of documentary evidence for income necessitates using notional income, whereas the insurer's liability persists despite challenges to the driver's license.
The court emphasized just compensation principles in accident claims, modifying awards based on notional income and established precedents to ensure fairness to the claimants.
The court clarified the need for functional disability assessment in determining compensation, asserting that future earnings loss should reflect realistic income capabilities post-injury.
It is a matter of record that Tribunal considered permanent disability of the body as a whole to extent of 90% and assessed compensation under head of loss of future income
The court ruled that income tax returns are essential for determining compensation, and notional income must reflect actual earnings.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.