( 2026:JHHC:20558 ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI M.A. No. 182 of 2007 Ghanshyam Prasad Sharma, son of Jai Ram Sharma, resident of Sector- II/D, Qr. No. 3-303, P.O. & P.S.- Bokaro Steel City, District-Bokaro. ... ... Appellant Versus 1. Sri Priyatosh Kumar, son of Lalan Singh, resident of Officers Colony, near S.S. LNT College, Behind Combined Building, P.O. & P.S.- Saraidhela, District- Dhanbad. (owner of Truck bearing No. B.R.Q.- 1739). 2. Ram Awadh Yadav, son of Late Shio Bachan Yadav, resident of Joshi Colony, Lakrakhanda, P.O., P.S.- Bakaro Steel City, District- Bokaro (driver of Truck bearing No. B.R.Q.-1739). 3. M/s National Insurance Co. Ltd., Satyam Engineering Building, near Syndicate Bank, Katras Road, Mathuria, P.O., P.S.- Dhansar, District- Bokaro, having its Divisional office at Sector-1, near Ram Mandir, P.O., P.S.- B.S. City, Bokaro. … ... Respondents With C.O. No. 05 of 2008 Priyatosh Kumar, son of Lalan Singh, resident of Officers Colony, near S.S. LNT College, Behind Combined Building, P.O. & P.S.- Saraidhela, District- Dhanbad. (owner of Truck bearing No. B.R.Q.-1739). ... ... Appellant Versus 1. Ghanshyam Prasad Sharma, son of Jai Ram Sharma, resident of Sector-II/D, Qr. No. 3-303, B.S. City, P.O. & P.S.- Bokaro Steel City, District-Bokaro. 2. Ram Awadh Yadav, son of Late Shio Bachan Yadav, resident of Joshi Colony, Lakrakhanda, P.O., P.S.- Bakaro Steel City, District- Bokaro (driver of Truck bearing No. B.R.Q.-1739). 3. M/s National Insurance Co. Ltd., Satyam Engineering Building, near Syndicate Bank, Katras Road, Mathuria, P.O., P.S. & District- Dhanbad, having its Divisional office at Sector-1, near Ram Mandir, B.S. City, P.O & P.S.-Sector-I, B.S. City, Bokaro. … ... Respondents ------ CORAM : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ------ For the Appellant / Claimant : Mr Chanchal Jain, Advocate Mr Abhishek Kumar, Advocate Mr Abhijeet Indra Guru, Advocate For the Owner : Mr Rajeev Kumar Karn, Advocate For the Resp./ Insurance Co.: Mr Manish Kumar, Advocate Mr G.C. Jha, Advocate ----- 47 /Dated: 10.07.2026 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. ( 2026:JHHC:20558 ) 2 2. M.A. No. 182 of 2007 by the claimant challenges the Judgment and Award dated 11.05.2007 made by the Motor Vehicle Claim Tribunal, Bokaro. 3. Mr Chanchal Jain, learned counsel for the appellant, has basically raised two grounds in support of this appeal:- (a) That the Tribunal erred in determining the claimant’s monthly income at Rs. 5000/-, instead of Rs. 15,000/-: (b) The claimant had suffered a medical disability of 75% consequent upon the amputation of his right leg above the thigh. The determination of functional disability at only 30% was erroneous. 4. Mr Chanchal Jain submitted that the Tribunal erred in going by the Income Tax Return (ITR) filed on 27.05.2002, when the accident took place on 31.08.2002. He pointed out that at that time, though the appellant- claimant had about 10 contracts with Bokaro Steel Limited, since the amounts had not been realised, returns were filed showing the annual income of approximately Rs. 50,000/-. 5. Mr Chanchal, however, pointed out that by order dated 03.04.2025, the appellant’s I.A. No. 7177 of 2016 under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC was allowed by this Court. In terms of this order, documents by which the appellant-claimant was awarded contracts by Bokaro Steel Limited were admitted in evidence by dispensing with formal proof. Based upon these documents, Mr Jain submitted that the appellant’s monthly income should have been taken at Rs. 15,000/-. 6. Mr Rajeev Kumar Karan, learned counsel for the owner of the offending vehicle, who is the respondent in M.A. No. 182 of 2016 and who has also filed Cross-Objection in this matter, submitted that the Tribunal ( 2026:JHHC:20558 ) 3 erred in holding that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a driving license. He pointed out that this finding was returned based upon the report of the Investigating Officer of the Insurance Company. However, it now transpired that the Investigating Officer made investigations about an incorrect driving license. He further pointed out that vide I.A. No. 1176 of 2014, the owner was allowed to produce the correct driving license possessed by the driver of the insured vehicle at the time of the accident. Accordingly, he submitted that there was no justification for making pay and recovery order in this present case. 7. Mr Manish Kumar and Mr G.C. Jha, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that in this case, income of the appellant was determined based upon his latest income tax return. He submitted that in fact, income tax of the past three years should have been produced based on which average income could have been determined in terms of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rashmirekha Tripathy and Another Vs. Branch Manager (Legal Claims), Sriram General Insurance Company Limited and Others, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1256. 8. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company further submitted that at least five of the contracts were already awarded to the appellant-claimant when the ITR was filed on 27.05.2002. However, the income from these contracts was never reflected in the ITR. He, therefore, submitted that the appellant cannot now claim that his income was Rs. 15,000/- per month and that his annual income was anything over and above Rs. 49,940/-. 9. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the appellant had deposed that he had come to the Court to depose by driving ( 2026:JHHC:20558 ) 4 his own four-wheeler scooter. He further submits that such an admission indicates that the appellant was able to work for gain and had already resumed his work. Therefore, there was nothing wrong in determining the functional disability at 30%. He submitted that this finding was entirely consistent with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. In Ajay Kumar, reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343. 10. The rival contentions now fall for determination. 11. The first issue to be determined in this appeal concerns the appellant- claimant's monthly or annual income. 12. The Tribunal relied upon the income tax returns of the appellant- claimant, which were filed on 27.05.2002. In this case, the accident, in which the appellant-claimant suffered 75% of medical disability, occurred on 31.08.2002. The evidence on record shows that the appellant already had five, out of nine contracts, which the appellant was allowed to produce on record vide order dated 03.04.2025 disposing of I.A. No. 7177 of 2016. 13. The argument that though five contracts were awarded, the requirement of disclosing the income from such contracts arises only after the payments have been made under the said contracts, cannot be simply rejected. The evidence on record shows that the appellant-claimant was indeed a contractor, who had these contracts at the time of filing of the income tax return. 14. Vide order dated 03.04.2025, the appellant-claimant was allowed to produce contracts dated 26.04.2001, 05.09.2001, 02.01.2002, 08.03.2002, 25.03.2003, 09.04.2002, 09.08.2002 and 21.08.2002 from Bokaro Steel Limited. The appellant had already deposed that at the time of the accident, he had obtained contract works valued at rupees ten lakhs from Bokaro ( 2026:JHHC:20558 ) 5 Steel Limited. Though the contracts may be valued at rupees ten lakhs, obviously, the profits from such contracts would be much lesser. 15. Based on the evidence already led before the Tribunal and now admitted by this Court vide order dated 03.04.2025 in I.A. No. 7177 of 2016 under Order 41 Rule 27 of the C.P.C., it would be safe to determine the appellant’s/claimant’s monthly income at Rs. 10,000/-. This would be a reasonable figure after considering the income tax returns and the number of contracts obtained by the appellant/claimant. Considering the quantum of each contract, it appears that the appellant was not a very large contractor, and each contract was for small amounts, totaling Rs. 10.00 lakhs or more. Therefore, the claim that he earns Rs 15000 per month cannot be readily accepted. However, determining the monthly income at only Rs 5000/- is also too low. 16. The next point for determination concerns the extent of functional disability suffered by the Claimant. 17. Rajkumar (Supra) draws a distinction between medical disability and functional disability. Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in such matters, what is crucial is not just the medical disability but the functional disability. 18. As regards the functional disability, the Tribunal's determination is also quite conservative. In the facts of the present case, the functional disability should have been taken at 50% and not merely 30%. This is because the appellant/claimant appears to be a small-time contractor, and although he may not have been discharging the contractual work, he would have to make several efforts to gather labour, both skilled and unskilled, and visit the contract sites to execute such contracts. His work was not merely to sit in an office and make decisions regarding the execution of the ( 2026:JHHC:20558 ) 6 contracts. The disability suffered, therefore, must be impacting his functions considerably if not entirely. 19. The medical certificate shows that the medical disability suffered by him was assessed at 75%. There is evidence that the appellant’s right leg above the thigh had to be amputated. Even the admission, on which the Tribunal has relied upon, refers to the appellant coming to depose in the Court by driving his own four-wheeler scooter. A four-wheeler scooter is a special utility vehicle for a disabled person. 20. The Tribunal has held that the appellant/claimant was ‘somehow’ able to work for gain and has already resumed his work. This itself suggests that the appellant was not able to work in the same manner as he could before the Accident and the disability suffered by him in the Accident. Therefore, though the medical disability and the functional disability need not be equated in the facts of this case, the determination of functional disability at only 30% is not proper, and that should have been determined and is hereby determined at 50%. 21. The compensation amount is required to be proportionately enhanced given the above findings. Since the appellant-claimant’s monthly income is taken at Rs. 10,000/-, his yearly income would be Rs. 1,20,000/-. To this, a 40% addition is due to future prospects. This means that the appellant’s annual income will have to be taken at Rs. 1,68,000/-. The multiplier in this case is 16; therefore, compensation, if the appellant had died, would amount to Rs. 26,88,000/-. Since the functional disability in this case is determined at 50%, the compensation will have to be fixed at Rs. 13,44,000/-. 22. Further, towards loss of income when the appellant was undergoing medical treatment, the appellant will have to be awarded an amount of Rs. ( 2026:JHHC:20558 ) 7 50,000/-. Towards the medical expenses, the appellant has been awarded an amount of Rs. 15,000/- only. However, considering the order dated 03.04.2025, by which the appellant was allowed to produce additional evidence, this amount will have to be enhanced to Rs. 2,00,000/-. Towards the food and attendant charges, the appellant is awarded a further amount of Rs. 50,000/-. 23. Towards the loss of amenities, enjoyment of life and marital bliss, the appellant has not been awarded any compensation and according to me, an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- is due under this heading. Towards loss of expectation of life, a further amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- is due. Towards pain and suffering, the appellant must be awarded an additional compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-. This is because the injury sustained by the appellant was such as warranted amputation of his right leg above the thigh. The medical disability is already assessed at 75%. The appellant was required to obtain treatment for almost five months. This includes surgery for amputation. 24. The total compensation therefore, would come to Rs. 18,44,000/-. 25. As to the owner’s Cross Objections, they must succeed. The Tribunal relied upon the Investigator’s report, and now, it is found that the Investigator had referred to the wrong licence number. Therefore, the concerned RTO claimed that no such licence was issued by it. 26. The correct driving licence has been produced on record vide I.A. No. 1176 of 2014, which was allowed by this Court on 03.03.2025. Since the driver of the insured vehicle held a valid driving licence, this was not a case for a pay-and-recovery order. The direction for pay and recovery in the impugned order is therefore set aside. ( 2026:JHHC:20558 ) 8 27. The appeal and the cross objection are now disposed of by enhancing the compensation amount from Rs. 3,33,000/- to Rs. 18,44,000/-. This amount will have to be paid with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, till the actual payment. The direction in the impugned order allowing the recovery from the cross objector - owner is set aside. 28. The respondent Insurance Company is now directed to pay the original amount, if not already paid and the enhanced amount together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum (which was already awarded by the Tribunal) from the date of the claim petition till its actual payment, within two months from today in this Court after giving due intimation to the learned counsel for the appellant. 29. Once this amount is deposited, the Registry to allow the claimant to withdraw this amount by furnishing his identity and bank details. Under no circumstances should the amount be paid otherwise than through usual banking channels. Any amount already paid to the appellant, including the interim payment of Rs. 25,000/-, will have to be adjusted. 30. The appeal and cross objection are disposed of in the above terms without any order for costs. (M.S. Sonak, C.J.) July 10, 2026 Ranjeet / R.Kr. AFR Uploaded on 13.07.2026