HARI SHANKAR PRASAD, J. - (1.) THIS appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.1.1998, passed in Misc. Appeal No. 226/92 (R) whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the appeal for enhancement of the awarded amount.
(2.) THE facts of the case lie in narrow compass. The applicant-appellant, Mahli Toppo, filed a compensation case bearing No. 159/86 in which, 5th Additional Judicial Commissioner-cum-Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal Ranchi awarded a sum of Rs. 90,000/- (Ninety thousand) with interest thereon @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the application till realization. Fact of the case is that appellant, Mahli Toppo was travelling as passenger in a bus bearing No. BPV-8094 from Nagar to Ranchi and when it reached near Bijupara village on Ranchi-Kuru PWD road at about 3.30 p.m. or so, a tanker MII-6548 belonging to one Inder Prasad Gupta, who was respondent No. 1 in the Claim Case No. 159/86, dashed against the bus. Due to rash and negligent driving by the tanker driver, the appellant was seriously injured on 11.10.1986. The appellant was removed to RMCH. Bariatu but injuries being serious one, right shoulder of the appellant was amputated. The appellant preferred a claim case against the Oriental Insurance Company and also against the owner and driver of the tanker. Owner took the plea in that case that tanker was fully insured and the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. The trial Court, after considering the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties, awarded a sum of Rs. 90,000/-(Ninety thousand), holding that the appellant is entitled for a compensation of this, very amount. The applicant-appellant, then preferred a Misc. Appeal Case No. 226/92 (R) claiming that he had preferred claim case for Rs. 10 lakhs but a meager amount of Rs. 90,000/- only has been awarded. Learned Single Judge dismissed the Misc. Appeal holding that the amount of compensation of Rs. 90,000/- is sufficient and does not require any interference. Mr. A.K. Lal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has become functionless as he has lost his right hand and the right hand is the important organ of the body from which, important works are done. Learned counsel further submitted that both the Courts did not appreciate that appellant was aged 17 years and good student and he had bright career. Due to amputation of right hand, he has become handicapped. Learned counsel further submitted that due to amputation of shoulder joint, he had suffered a loss of enjoyment of life and other benefits for the whole of his life. Learned counsel further submitted that his ambition got shattered. He further pointed out that learned Single Judge failed to consider this aspect of the matter that different judgments of other Hon'ble High Courts in which, under the similar circumstances, much more than the present amount of award has been awarded. In this connection reliance has been placed on 1994 ACJ 431 and 2000 ACJ 1182. In 1994 ACJ 431 the amount of compensation of Rs. 47,000/- was enhanced to Rs. 2,00,000/- but the injured was a mechanical engineer. In 2000 ACJ 1182 the case was of a person aged 45 years and was engineering supervisor in a bank. In that case also the amount of compensation was enhanced.
(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that amount awarded by the learned Trial Court and by the learned Single Judge is quite adequate in the circumstances of the case and there is no evidence to the effect that appellant was very meritorious student and no such evidence has been brought on record. We quote hereunder the finding of the learned Single Judge. "The counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal considered the entire evidence and the entire compensation amount had already been paid. On perusal of the impugned judgment and the evidence on the record, it appears, that at the time of accident, the appellant was merely a student and was reading in matric class and even after the accident, he appeared at the examination but certainly, he was not a meritorious student at all. The appellant also prosecuted his studies even after the amputation. So the appellant was not completely handicapped inspite of loss of a hand." ;