IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI M. A. No. 409 of 2016 Pramod Kumar Burnwal, S/o Nand Kishore Burnwal, R/o Mouza Gunghasa, P.O.-Hariharpur, P.S.-Hariharpur (Gomoh), Dist.-Dhanbad .... …. Appellant Versus

1. Rashid Khan, Sectional Engineer (T.R.S.), Electric Loco Shed, Gomoh, East Central Railway, Dhanbad, P.O.-Gomoh, P.S.-Hariharpur, Dist.-

Dhanbad

2. The Divisional Railway Manager, Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S.-Dhanbad, Dist.-

Dhanbad

3. Nand Kishore Burnwal, S/o Kashi Nath Burnwal

4. Sangeeta Burnwal, W/o Nand Kishore Burnwal, Gunghasa, P.O.-

Hariharpur, P.S.-Hariharpur (Gomoh), Dist.-Dhanbad .... .... Respondents -----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY -----

For the Appellant : Mr. P.K. Mukhopadhyay, Advocate Mr. Raj Kumar Verma, Advocate Mr. Shrikant Jha, Advocate For Respondents : Mrs. Bakshi Vibha, Advocate -----

Oral Order

30 / Dated : 12.12.2025

1. The instant appeal has been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1978 by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation of awarded under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act for a sum of Rs.

1,50,000/-.

2. As per the case of the claimants, Pramod Kumar Burnwal (appellant herein) met with motor vehicle accident while he was going by a motorcycle as a pillion rider. At the relevant time, it was being driven by Ram Kishore Burnwal. The motorcycle was dashed near Gomoh Railway Station by one Tata Sumo bearing registration No. BR-17D-7982, as a result the claimant- Pramod Kumar Burnwal sustained grievous injuries on his left leg resulting in 75% permanent disability of his knee. The claimant No.3- Pramod Kumar Burnwal, was working as a salesman in a foodgrain shop with a monthly income of Rs. 2,200/-.

3. The offending vehicle namely Tata Sumo bearing Registration No. BR-17D-7982 was registered in the name of Sectional Engineer TRS Electric Loco Shed, Gomoh, East Central Railway, Dhanbad. The learned Tribunal recorded a finding in favour of the claimants and held that Pramod Kumar Burnwal had sustained 75% disablement in the said motor vehicle accident as a lump sum amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was allowed to the claimant- Pramod Kumar Burnwal with interest of 6% per annum from the date of judgment.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the appellant that the award of compensation on lump sum basis is unknown to the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act when the claim was preferred under 166 of the Act. It was incumbent on the part of the learned Tribunal to have computed the income on the basis of the evidence on record and the permanent disability suffered by claimant No.3- Pramod Kumar Burnwal, but none of the evidence has been considered and, therefore, the order impugned suffers from perversity.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent-Railway has defended the impugned order.

6. Once a claim is preferred under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, it was incumbent on the part of the learned Tribunal to have awarded compensation as per ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121 and followed in National Insurance Company Limited VS Pranay Sethi, 2017 16 SCC 68. The learned Tribunal without applying multiplier system has awarded lump sum compensation which is impermissible.

7. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides and on perusal of the materials on record, it is rather strange to find that a case, which has been filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act for permanent disablement of 75%, has been disposed of without any materials on records.

Final compensation will work out as under:

Annual Income Rs. 2,200 x 12 Rs. 26,400/- 75% of disablement Rs. 19,800/-

Applying multiplier of 18 Rs. 3,56,400/- Future Prospect @ 40% Rs. 1,42,560/- Medical expenses Rs. 1,44,059/- Total Rs 6,43,019/-

The Divisional Railway Manager, Dhanbad (Respondent no. 2) is directed to pay compensation of Rs.6,43,019/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim applic