Jharkhand High Court
The Branch Manager vs Rakesh Kumar Gupta on 5 March, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No. 455 of 2024
The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. Palkot Road,
Gumla, P.O., P.S. & District- Gumla represented through Rajeev Ranjan
Pandey, son of Vijay Kumar Pandey, aged about 40 years, the Assistant
Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd., 2nd Floor, Zila Parishad
Marketing Complex, Near Ranchi Nagar Nigam, Kutchery Chowk, P.O.
Ranchi G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District- Ranchi
(Insurer of Pick Up Van No. JH-07D-6832) ... Appellant
-Versus-
1. Rakesh Kumar Gupta, S/o Sri Gaya Prasad Saw (through his father and
natural guardian Gaya Prasad Saw, S/o Late Bhagwan Prasad Sah, R/o
Palkot Road, P.O., P.S. & District- Gumla (Claimant)
2. Ram Gopal Saboo, S/o Satyanarayan Saboo, R/o Main Road, Gumla, P.O.,
P.S. & District- Gumla
(Registered Owner of Vehicle Pick Up Van No. JH-07D-6832)
3. Arman Khan, S/o Late Md. Siddiq Khan, R/o Village Raja Colony, Gumla,
P.O., P.S. & District- Gumla (Driver of Vehicle) ... Respondents
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Appellant : Mr. Pran Pranay, Advocate
For the Insurance Company :
-----
04/05.03.2025 Heard Mr. Pran Pranay, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-
insurance company.
2. This appeal is preferred against the judgment/award dated 21.05.2024 passed in M.A.C. Case No.30/2015 by the learned Principal District Judge- cum-Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, Gumla, whereby, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.30,13,964/- as compensation in favour of respondent no.1 along with interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing of claim application till its realization and direction has been issued that the appellant- insurance company will pay the said amount within a period of 30 days from the date of the award.
3. Mr. Pran Pranay, learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company submits that the insurance company has preferred this appeal mainly on two grounds, firstly the driver is having driving license to drive Light Motor Vehicle -1- M.A. No. 455 of 2024 and he is not authorized to drive a Light Goods Vehicle i.e. Pick Up Van and in view of that, he was not entitle to drive the same, however, the learned Court has wrongly given the finding and secondly the quantum of future medical expenses is not calculated properly and in view of that, this appeal may kindly be admitted. He further submits that there is delay of 55 days in filing the appeal and for condonation of delay, I.A. No.13619 of 2024 has been filed. On these grounds, he submits that this appeal may kindly be admitted and the delay of 55 days in filing the present appeal may kindly be condoned.
4. It transpires from the judgment/award of the learned Tribunal that the claimant filed the case for compensation on account of injury and his permanent disablement, caused in the vehicular accident taken place on 25.02.2014, opposite Sarda Complex, Palkot Road, Gumla by the fault of the driver of Pick Up Van bearing registration No. JH-07D-6832. It was further asserted in the said compensation case that on 25.02.2014 at about 08:15 PM, respondent n.3 herein-driver of the said vehicle driven the vehicle rashly and negligently and dashed the claimant at the place opposite Sarda Complex, Palkot Road, Gumla and caused injuries in his both thighs, both arms and other parts of body. The claimant was taken to hospital for treatment of his injury, but he could not completely cure and become permanent disable. The claimant is unable to stand and still he is in the bed due to injuries. The disability certificate of the claimant has been issued by assessing his disability 100%. It was also asserted in the said compensation case that on the date of accident, the claimant was aged about 26 years 4 months. The claimant was running transport and Kirana business and his monthly income was -2- M.A. No. 455 of 2024 Rs.35,000/- per month. The claimant was voluntarily paying income tax. It was also asserted in the said compensation case that the offending Pick Up Van was insured by the appellant-insurance company vide Policy No.170204/31/13/6300006294 which was valid up to 20.11.2014 and in view of that, the claimant prayed compensation of Rs.90,10,000/- jointly and severely with an interest @ 18% from the date of accident.
5. In this background, the learned Tribunal has mainly formulated eight issues to decide the said compensation case. Issue no.7 was with regard to valid driving license of the driver and issue no.4 was with regard to permanent disability of the injured. The learned Tribunal has taken up issue nos. 1, 6, 7, 8 and 9 simultaneously and found that the said Pick Up Van was involved in the accident. The registration certificate of the vehicle was produced and in view of that, the learned Court has found that respondent no.2 herein is the registered owner of the offending vehicle. The claimant had filed copy of Tax Token issued on 21.02.2014 for the period from 22.01.2014 to 21.01.2015. The certificate of fitness of the said Pick Up van was also brought before the learned Tribunal, which was valid till 26.11.2014. The certificate of pollution under control of the offending vehicle was also brought before the learned Tribunal. The copy of the insurance policy of the offending vehicle was also filed by the claimant. The appellant-insurance company had not disputed these documents and, therefore, the vehicular documents of offending Pick Up Van was found in order by the learned Tribunal. Respondent no.2 herein i.e. the owner of the vehicle has stated that Arman Malik- respondent no.3 herein, who is the driver of the offending vehicle and he was having driving license bearing DL No.6223/12 was issued -3- M.A. No. 455 of 2024 to him from the District Transport Office, Latehar and he has proved certificate issued from Latehar Transport Office dated 01.11.2018. The photocopy of driving license of Arman Khan has been marked as Ext.-A and certificate dated 01.11.2018 has been marked as Ext.-B and the registration certificate and certificate of fitness of the said offending vehicle have been marked as Exts. C and D respectively. The learned Tribunal has taken care of the argument of the insurance company with regard to driving license of the driver of Light Motor Vehicle and the driver was not having the license of Pick Up Van i.e. Light goods vehicle or commercial vehicle. The learned Tribunal has found from the verification report issued by the District Transport Office, Latehar (Ext.B) that the type of license is mentioned 'professional' and at serial no.9 of the said verification report, 'vehicle initially authorized to drive' is mentioned as M/cy & Light Motor Vehicle. The learned Tribunal has further appreciated Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and found that the weight of the offending vehicle was not exceeding 7500 Kg and in view of that, finding was given that the driver was competent to drive the said vehicle. The learned Tribunal has rightly appreciated the same and there is no illegality on that point.
6. A reference may be made to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, reported in AIR 2017 SC 3668. Paragraphs 38 and 46 of the said judgment read as under:
"38. In Annappa Irappa Nesaria [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Annappa Irappa Nesaria, (2008) 3 SCC 464 : (2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 945 : (2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 99] , a Division Bench of this Court has considered the question with respect to an accident which took place on 9-12-1999. The driver was driving a Matador van, a "goods carriage" vehicle, holding -4- M.A. No. 455 of 2024 a licence to drive light motor vehicle. This Court referred to Forms 4 and 6 and Rules 14 and 16 of the 1989 Rules and opined that as Form 4 has been amended w.e.f. 28-3-2001, transport vehicle has been substituted for medium goods vehicle and heavy goods vehicle and provision in the form at the relevant time, covered both "light passenger carriage vehicle" and "light goods carriage vehicle". The driver who had a valid driving licence to drive a light motor vehicle, therefore, was authorised to drive a light goods vehicle (transport vehicle) as well. The view taken with respect to the pre-amended position, before the amendment of Form 4 on 28-3-2001 appears to be correct for the reasons discussed by us. However, no change has been brought about by insertion of Form 4 after 28-3-2001 with respect to LMV category transport vehicle, thus, Annappa Irappa Nesaria [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Annappa Irappa Nesaria, (2008) 3 SCC 464 : (2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 945 :
(2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 99] cannot be taken to be laying down correct legal position applicable after 28-3-2001. With respect to the post-amendment legal position, the decision cannot be said to be laying down the correct law. However, this Court has rightly opined in the aforesaid case that the person holding a licence to drive "light motor vehicle" could have driven "light passenger carriage vehicle" and "light goods carriage vehicle" also. Thus, the decision is partially overruled to the aforesaid extent only.
46. Section 10 of the Act requires a driver to hold a licence with respect to the class of vehicles and not with respect to the type of vehicles. In one class of vehicles, there may be different kinds of vehicles. If they fall in the same class of vehicles, no separate endorsement is required to drive such vehicles. As light motor vehicle includes transport vehicle also, a holder of light motor vehicle licence can drive all the vehicles of the class including transport vehicles. It was pre-amended position as well the post-amended position of Form 4 as amended on 28-3-2001. Any other interpretation would be repugnant to the definition of "light motor vehicle" in Section 2(21) and the provisions of Section 10(2)(d), Rule 8 of the 1989 Rules, other provisions and also the forms which are in tune with the provisions. Even otherwise the forms never intended to exclude transport vehicles from the category of "light motor vehicles" and for light motor vehicle, the validity period of such licence hold good and apply for the transport vehicle of such class also and the expression in Section 10(2)(e) of the Act "Transport Vehicle" would include medium goods vehicle, medium passenger motor vehicle, heavy goods vehicle, heavy passenger motor vehicle which earlier found place in Sections 10(2)(e) to (h) and our conclusion is fortified by the syllabus and rules which we have discussed. Thus, we answer the questions which are referred to us thus:
(i). "Light motor vehicle" as defined in Section 2(21) of the Act would include a transport vehicle as per the weight -5- M.A. No. 455 of 2024 prescribed in Section 2(21) read with Sections 2(15) and 2(48). Such transport vehicles are not excluded from the definition of the light motor vehicle by virtue of Amendment Act 54 of 1994.
(ii) A transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which does not exceed 7500 kg would be a light motor vehicle and also motor car or tractor or a roadroller, "unladen weight" of which does not exceed 7500 kg and holder of a driving licence to drive class of "light motor vehicle" as provided in Section 10(2)(d) is competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg or a motor car or tractor or roadroller, the "unladen weight" of which does not exceed 7500 kg. That is to say, no separate endorsement on the licence is required to drive a transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class as enumerated above. A licence issued under Section 10(2)(d) continues to be valid after Amendment Act 54 of 1994 and 28-3-2001 in the form.
(iii) The effect of the amendment made by virtue of Act 54 of 1994 w.e.f. 14-11-1994 while substituting clauses (e) to (h) of Section 10(2) which contained "medium goods vehicle" in Section 10(2)(e), "medium passenger motor vehicle" in Section 10(2)(f), "heavy goods vehicle" in Section 10(2)(g) and "heavy passenger motor vehicle" in Section 10(2)(h) with expression "transport vehicle" as substituted in Section 10(2)(e) related only to the aforesaid substituted classes only. It does not exclude transport vehicle, from the purview of Section 10(2)(d) and Section 2(41) of the Act i.e. light motor vehicle.
(iv) The effect of amendment of Form 4 by insertion of "transport vehicle" is related only to the categories which were substituted in the year 1994 and the procedure to obtain driving licence for transport vehicle of class of "light motor vehicle" continues to be the same as it was and has not been changed and there is no requirement to obtain separate endorsement to drive transport vehicle, and if a driver is holding licence to drive light motor vehicle, he can drive transport vehicle of such class without any endorsement to that effect."
In view of the above judgment, if unloaded weight of the vehicle does not exceed 7500 Kg and the person is having the driving license of Light Motor Vehicle, he is competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus. The learned Tribunal has found that the weight of the said offending vehicle was not exceeding 7500 Kg and, as such, that point is not available to the appellant-insurance company.
-6- M.A. No. 455 of 2024
7. The learned Tribunal has further appreciated oral evidence and medical evidences and further considered the medical board certificate issued showing 100% permanent disability of the claimant and he was not in a position to move or walk and in view of that, 100% disability has been proved.
8. In the case of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and another, reported in 2011 (1) SCC 343, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation for loss of future earnings would depend upon the impact and effect of the permanent disability on his earning capacity. In paragraphs 10 and 11 of the said judgement, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"10. Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. The Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. In most of the cases, the percentage of economic loss, that is, the percentage of loss of earning capacity, arising from a permanent disability will be different from the percentage of permanent disability. Some Tribunals wrongly assume that in all cases, a particular extent (percentage) of permanent disability would result in a corresponding loss of earning capacity, and consequently, if the evidence produced show 45% as the permanent disability, will hold that there is 45% loss of future earning capacity. In most of the cases, equating the extent (percentage) of loss of earning capacity to the extent (percentage) of permanent disability will result in award of either too low or too high a compensation.
11. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of the permanent disability on the earning capacity of the injured; and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terms of money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings (by applying the standard multiplier method used to determine loss of dependency). We may however note that in some cases, on appreciation of evidence and assessment, the Tribunal may find that the percentage of loss of earning capacity as a result of the permanent -7- M.A. No. 455 of 2024 disability, is approximately the same as the percentage of permanent disability in which case, of course, the Tribunal will adopt the said percentage for determination of compensation. (See for example, the decisions of this Court in Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 4 and Yadava Kumar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.)."
9. The learned Tribunal has found that the injured was on bed and he was not a salaried person and he was self-employed, who managed his business and for that, he is definitely required to move around and he can also not drive on his own which hinders his mobility, which proves that the functional disability of the claimant will severely impact his earning capacity and in view of that, the functional disability calculated by the learned Tribunal is correct.
10. In the cases of permanent disablement caused by a motor accident, the claimant is entitled to not just future loss of income but also future prospects and in many cases, it has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the High Court that just compensation must be interpreted in such a manner as to place the claimant as he was before the accident took place. A reference may be made to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680.
11. In the case of R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd., reported in 1995 (1) SCC 551, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt with different heads of compensation in injury cases. Paragraph 9 of the said judgment read as under:
"9. Broadly speaking while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of money; whereas -8- M.A. No. 455 of 2024 non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medical attendance;
(ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far non-pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering, already suffered or likely to be suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters i.e. on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, i.e., on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life."
In view of the above judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered that the injured person is required to be compensated under different heads and in view of that, the amount of Rs.3 Lakhs for future medical expenses has been awarded by the learned Tribunal and that cannot be said to be excessive.
12. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, this Court is not accepting the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company as there is no merit in this appeal and, as such, this appeal is dismissed.
13. Since the appellant has not been able to satisfy the Court on merit, I.A., meant for condonation of delay is also, hereby, dismissed.
14. The statutory amount deposited before this Court will be transmitted back to the learned Tribunal, which will be utilized in satisfying the award in favour of the claimant.
15. Pending I.A., if any, is disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Ajay/ A.F.R. -9- M.A. No. 455 of 2024