( 2026:JHHC:19525 ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI M. A. No. 508 of 2015 Md Rizwan S/o Md Khalil @ Saif, resident of Khirgaon (Habibi Nagar), P.S.- Sadar, District- Hazaribagh. …. .... Appellant Versus 1. Sri Chandra Prakash Awasthi, S/o Sri B.D. Awasthi, R/o 133/55, “O” Block Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur, District- Kanpur Urban 208023 (U.P.). (owner of L.P. Truck No. UP-78-T-1913) 2. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Jagjit Complex, 110/188, G.T. Road, Gunti No. 5, Kanpur, through Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Lakchmi Cinema Hall Complex, P.S.- Sadar, District- Hazaribagh (Jharkhand). (Insurer of L.P. Truck No. UP-78-T-1913) …. …. Respondents ------ CORAM : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ------ For the Appellant : Mr Sudhir Kumar Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent No.2 : Mr G.C. Jha, Advocate ----- 09 /Dated: 03.07.2026 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal challenges the judgement and award dated 11.08.2015 in Claim Case No. 94 of 2006 made by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal at Hazaribagh (Tribunal) on the ground that inadequate compensation has been awarded to the appellant herein. 3. The records show that the appellant met a vehicular accident on 06.04.2005, in which, he suffered grievous injury in the right tibia femur bone. The records further show that the appellant was admitted in the hospital from 09.04.2005 to 23.04.2005 for treatment. 4. There is evidence of the appellant requiring treatment in the Sadar Hospital, Hazaribagh and thereafter, being treated by Dr. S.N.Yadav in R.P. Orthopedic Hospital and Dr. K.M. Ojha. 5. The Medical Board examined the appellant and assessed his disability at 38%. There is some ambiguity as to whether this disability is permanent or ( 2026:JHHC:19525 ) 2 temporary. The medical certificate refers to neither. However, the medical certificate refers to traumatic partial interlocking and stiffness of knee. 6. The disability certificate was admitted in evidence and the same has been relied upon by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment and award. 7. The appellant has deposed in the matter. He has referred to the operation he underwent. He has also stated that he works as a tyre/puncture repairer and earns Rs. 3000/- per month. He has deposed that after the accident, he was incapable of discharging the duties he used to discharge earlier. 8. The appellant, however, deposed in his cross-examination that he can walk, roam, and perform his daily routine work by himself. That does not detract from the previous statement concerning his work as a tyre/puncture repairer. 9. There is evidence that the appellant was 24 years old at the time of the accident and there was no serious cross to his earning of Rs. 3000/- as a tyre/puncture repairer. In any event, these are matters which have been accepted by the Tribunal, and there is no cross-objection to challenge these findings. 10. The Tribunal has awarded the appellant compensation of Rs. 1,00,75/- under the following heads: - (A) Amount spent on Treatment inclusive of medicine / operation / etc. : Rs. 47,075/- (B) Income during treatment for one month : Rs. 3000/- (C) Pain, suffering, hardship etc. : Rs. 50,000/- Total amount (A+B+C) : Rs. 100,075/- 11. The Tribunal in this case has noted that the disability certificate issued by the Civil Surgeon-cum-Medical Officer, Hazaribagh, indicated that the appellant ( 2026:JHHC:19525 ) 3 suffered 38% partial disability. There is a difference between partial disability and total disability. Similarly, there is also a difference between temporary disability and permanent disability. The fact that the Tribunal has held that there was a partial disability cannot be interpreted as a finding that the appellant suffered only a temporary disability, as was contended by the learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company. 12. Based on the evidence on record, both oral as well as documentary, it will have to be held that the appellant suffered permanent, but partial disability of 38% on account of a vehicular accident. As held in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. In Ajay Kumar, reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343, what is crucial in such matters is the functional disability, not merely the physical disability. 13. In this case, the evidence shows that the appellant was a tyre / puncture repairer. He has deposed that after the accident, he was unable to do the same work which he was doing before the accident. If the appellant was a tyre/puncture repairer, then it is reasonable to proceed on the basis that the appellant was required to squat in order to remove the punctured tyres and repair them. The injuries that he sustained must have made it difficult for the appellant to discharge such work. In any event, the injuries sustained by him must have made it difficult for the appellant to discharge such works with the same efficiency that he was discharging before the accident and the consequent injury. 14. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of this case, and upon considering the disability suffered by the appellant and the nature of his work, the functional disability can be safely considered as 50% and not merely 38%. In fact, the impugned award completely ignores the distinction between physical disability and functional disability. In that sense, the award is contrary to the law laid down in the case of Raj Kumar (Supra). ( 2026:JHHC:19525 ) 4 15. The Tribunal has already accepted the appellant’s monthly income as Rs. 3,000/- per month, i.e., Rs. 36,000/- per year. At least 40% addition is warranted towards future prospects. This means that the appellant’s annual income can be taken at Rs. 50,400/-. Since the functional disability in this case is of 50%, the total yearly income has to be taken at Rs. 25,200/-. 16. The petitioner was 24 years old at the time of the accident and therefore, the multiplier to be adopted would be 18. This means that the compensation payable to the appellant on account of the injury suffered by him would come to Rs. 4,53,600/-. To this, the loss of income during treatment, assessed at Rs. 3,000/-, will have to be added. Similarly, with respect to pain, suffering, and hardship, the award of Rs. 50,000/- made by the Tribunal will have to be sustained. Towards conveyance/food and attendant charges, a further amount of Rs. 10,000/- will have to be awarded since the appellant was in the hospital from 09.04.2005 to 23.04.2005. The Tribunal has already awarded Rs. 47,075/- towards the amounts spent on treatment, including medicines, operations, etc. This amount can be rounded off to Rs. 50,000/-. 17. Thus, Rs. 1,13,000/- must be added to Rs. 4,53,600/- as determined above. The total compensation will have to be assessed at Rs. 5,66,600/-. 18. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed, and the compensation amount is enhanced from Rs. 1,00,075/- to Rs. 5,66,600/-. However, the interest of 9% and 12%, awarded by the Tribunal, is a little excessive in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Even the appellant, in the written submission filed, prayed for interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, but from the date of the claim petition, which is 25.07.2006. ( 2026:JHHC:19525 ) 5 19. Accordingly, it is directed that the compensation amount of Rs. 5,66,600/- shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum commencing from the date of the claim petition i.e. 25.07.2006. 20. An amount of Rs. 1,00,075/-, along with interest, has already been paid by the respondent Insurance Company to the appellant. The respondent Insurance Company is directed to deposit the balance amount as determined by this judgment and order in this Court within six weeks from today after due notice to the learned counsel for the appellant. 21. Once the amount is deposited, the appellant shall be entitled to withdraw the same by furnishing his identity and bank details. The Registry should transfer the amount directly in the appellant’s bank account. Under no circumstances is any transfer otherwise than through the regular banking channels allowed. 22. The appeal is allowed on the above terms, without any order for costs. (M.S. Sonak, C.J.) July 03, 2026 Ranjeet / R.Kr. NAFR Uploaded on 06.07.2026