SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

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

Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 2:Mr. Shailendra Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent Nos. 1 and 3:Mr. Raghunandan Kumar Singh, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
Tribunal cannot award compensation on the basis of injury assessed by Private Doctor.

Headnote:Motor Vehicles Act, 1988—Section 142—Accident—Injury—Permanent disfigurement of face—Amount of Rs.46,259 awarded by Tribunal to be paid by Insurance Company with 6% interest—Permanent disfigurement of head or face by a deeming fiction comes within purview of permanent disablement under M.V. Act —Entire amount is payable in case of permanent total disablement and appropriate percentage of same payable in case of permanent partial disablement—Tribunal may not have solely relied upon certificate of a Private Hospital produced by claimant —It ought to have referred claimant-appellant to a Medical Board, even if no petition had been filed on that behalf by claimant—Impugned judgment and award set aside—Claim of petitioner regarding permanent disfigurement of face treating same as permanent disablement under Section 142 to be reconsidered by Tribunal after referring claimant-appellant to a Medical Board. (Paras 8 to 10)

       Result: Appeal allowed.

       

ORDER

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







Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top