PATNA HIGH COURT
Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.
Dr. Pramod Kumar Singh —Appellant
versus
Samar Singh —Respondent
M.A. No. 233 of 2006
Decided on 17.2.2010
Result: Appeal allowed.
Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.—Heard learned counsel for the appellant, respondent No. 2, Insurance Company and respondent Nos. 1 and 3, owner and driver of the vehicle.
2. The matter has come up at the stage of admission but with the consent of the parties, it has been heard at length and is being finally disposed of at this stage itself.
3. The appellant, who was the claimant in the court below, admittedly sustained injury in an accident which took place on 30.5.96 at 6.30 p.m. on G.T. Road near Jamuhar from vehicle bearing Truck No. BPM-9695. He was an M.B.B.S. Doctor earning Rs. 3,800 per month and aged about 40 years. On account of such accident, he suffered multiple injuries resulting in permanent disfigurement of the face with slight deviation of nose. In support of the said injuries, a report of the Heritage Hospital, Varanasi was produced where he had been admitted on 31.5.96 after the accident on the same day and on 4.6.96, he was operated upon and discharged on 7.6.96. The injuries were said to have been repaired and it was further stated that the following permanent defects will remain: (i) multiple scarring of the face resulting in disfigurement, and (ii) slight deviation of nose will remain provided he does not undergo corrective surgery in future.
4. The Tribunal on a consideration of the matter came to the conclusion that nothing has been brought on the record to consider the injuries sustained by the doctor claimant within the category of permanent disablement but he had sustained injury and accordingly a total amount of Rs. 46,259 under different heads, like transport to the hospital, nourishment, medical expenses, test towards Bio-chemistry and loss of earning during his treatment was awarded, out of which an amount of Rs. 25,000 had already been paid and the remaining amount of Rs. 21,259 was directed to be paid by the Insurance Company with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing of the case till payment.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that under Section 142(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 permanent disfigurement of the forehead or face comes within the category of permanent disablement. It is, therefore, contended by learned counsel that the Tribunal has seriously erred in law in not treating the case of the claimant as a permanent disablement and awarding the amount of compensation by applying the multiplier number to the income of the appellant. It is further submitted by learned counsel that several petitions were filed for referring the petitioner to the Medical Board but the same was not done.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that there was nothing on the record to show as to what percentage of permanent disablement had been caused as a result of disfigurement of the face. It is further submitted that the report of a private hospital of Varanasi has rightly not been relied upon by the Tribunal for grant of any compensation for permanent disability in the absence of any report of the Medical Board.
7. Section 142 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is quoted herein below:
“142. Permanent disablement.—For the purposes of this Chapter, permanent disablement of a person shall be deemed to have resulted from an accident of the nature referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 140 if such person has suffered by reason of the accident any injury or injuries involving:
(a) permanent privation of the sight of either eye or the hearing of either ear, or privation of any member or joint; or
(b) destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member of joint; or
(c) permanent disfiguration of the head or face.”
8. It is evident from a consideration of the above provision that a permanent disfigurement of head or face by a deeming fiction comes within the purview of permanent disablement under the Act. The only question that could have arisen is as to whether in the case of the appellant the permanent disfigurement of his face would amount to p
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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.