2025:JHHC:38033 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI M. A. No. 86 of 2012 Sunita Devi, W/o Bhuneshwar Sao, R/o Village-Pitiz, P.O.-Pitiz, P.S.-Itkhori, Dist.-Chatra .... …. Appellant Versus 1. Shambhu Prasad Keshri, S/o Jagdish Sao, R/o Village & P.O.-Kanhachatti, P.S.-Chatra, Dist.-Chatra 2. National Insurance Company Limited, Ranchi-Patna Road, Hazaribag, P.O. & P.S.-Hazaribag, Dist.-Hazaribag .... .... Respondents ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY ----- For the Appellant : Mr. Vijay Kr. Sharma, Advocate For Respondent-Insurance Co. : Mr. Alok Lal, Advocate ----- Oral Order 17 / Dated : 17.12.2025 1. The claimant is in appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act in Claim Case No. 43 of 2009 for the permanent disability suffered by her in a motor vehicle accident. 2. The finding of fact recorded by learned Tribunal with regard to factum of accident in which the claimant had suffered injury, resulting in her permanent disability is not under challenge in the instant appeal. 3. The claimant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of compensation mainly on the ground that the claimant had suffered permanent physical disablement to the extent 70% as held by the Medical Board in the disability certificate (Ext.12). However, learned Tribunal has awarded a functional disability to the extent of 60% only. 4. It is also contended that no award has been made under the head of ‘pain and suffering’, ‘personal amenities’ and ‘future medical expense’. 5. It is argued by learned counsel for the appellant that the claimant had been bed ridden, but only a meagre amount of Rs.10,000/- has been awarded under the head of ‘attendant’. Future expenses under the head of ‘attendant’ is not allowed. Reliance in this regard is placed 2012 (1) JLJR page 617 (SC) (Govind Yadav Vs. The New India Insurance Company Limited), wherein claimant who had suffered a disability of 70% and Rs.1,50,000/- was allowed under the head of ‘pain and suffering’, Rs.1,50,000/- under the head of loss of amenities of life has been allowed and further compensation were awarded under the head of future medical treatment etc. 6. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has defended the impugned order and submitted that the plea that the claimant has suffered permanent physical disability confining her to bed is not sustainable for the reason that she 2025:JHHC:38033 2 has appeared in the Tribunal as witness and had testified. Had she suffered paralysis confining her to bed, she would not have been in a position to come to the Tribunal to depose. It is further argued that the Tribunal has extensively dealt with the evidences on record on the basis of which, the age of the claimant has been found to be 50 years at the time of accident. Furthermore, the amount of compensation in each cases depends upon the facts and circumstances and the injury suffered and mechanically a ruling cannot be applied. A compensation awarded in a case by the Hon’ble Supreme Court cannot be applied in other such cases. 7. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides and on perusal of the materials on record, it is difficult to be persuaded by the argument advanced on behalf of the claimant that the disability suffered by the claimant was of such a nature that she had been permanently rendered bed ridden and was not able to carry out her day-to-day activities. 8. A plain reading of Ext.18, which is MRI report, reflects that there is fracture in only part D4 Vertebrae. The disability certificate, which has been marked as Ext.12, only states that it was a case of Post Traumatic Quadriplegia and it does not state that the injury was permanent in nature and there was no chance of any recovery. Under the circumstance, the plea for future medical expenses and the attendant charges throughout the life is not, at all, tenable. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order to not allow compensation under these heads. 9. However, considering the nature of injury and the prolonged treatment, the compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for pain and suffering and Rs.1,50,000/ for loss of amenities of life is allowed. 10. Thus, the claimant shall be entitled to total compensation with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim application. Insurance Company shall make the payment to the Tribunal within a month of this order, which shall be disbursed forthwith to the claimants as per the terms fixed by it with adjustment. With this modification of award, this misc. appeal stands disposed of. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) AKT/Satendra Uploaded 19.12.2025