Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:11304 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI M.A. No. 549 of 2017 With I.A. No. 4956 of 2022 Samresh Kumar @ Chhunu son of Sri Awadhesh Kumar, resident of village-Muhalla Sundar Nagar, P.O. + P.S. Koderma, District-Koderma …... Appellant/Claimant Versus 1. Sabir Hussain son of Late Sahadat Hussain, resident of village- Par Nawada Police Station Naga, P.O. + P.S. Nawada, District –Nawada (Owner of Bus India Travel Registration No. JH-IG 7643). 2. Kapildeo Yadav son of Sri Ramswarup Yadav resident of village- Par Nawada, P.O. + P.S. Nawada, District-Nawada (Driver of India Bus, Registration No. JH-IG-7643). 3. National Insurance Company Limited, Rajendra Nagar Nawada, Bihar through its local Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Jhumri Telaiya Branch, Asnabad, P.O. Jhumri Telaiya, P.S. Telaiya, District-Koderma. (Insurer of the Bus India Travel Registration No. JH-IG-7643). ….. …. Respondents/Opposite Parties --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE --------- For the Appellant: Mr. Avilash Kumar, Advocate For the Resp. No. 1: Mr. Bharat Kumar, Advocate Mr. Sparsh Kumar Rai, Advocate For the Resp. No. 3: Mr. Pratyush Kumar, Advocate Mr. Vishwajeetjee Chaturvedi, Advocate --------- 11/Dated: 18.04.2026 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. With the consent of and at the request of learned counsel for the parties, this appeal is taken up for final disposal. 3. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 30.06.2017 dismissing Claim Case No. 22 of 2008 on the ground that the claimant failed to prove that the accident in this case took place on Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:11304 account of the negligence of the 2nd respondent, who was driving the Bus. 4. The record shows that the appellant-claimant was a pillion rider on a motorcycle when, on 10.12.2007, the insured Bus collided with the motorcycle, resulting in injuries to the appellant due to which he suffered a disability to the extent of 45%. His brother, the rider of the motorcycle, also suffered injuries and, in the separate claim petition preferred by him, has been awarded compensation of Rs. 10,28,400/- vide judgment and award dated 10.09.2014 in Claim Case No. 21 of 2008. 5. Therefore, broadly, the following two points for determination arise in this appeal: - (a) Whether the accident in which the appellant sustained injuries was due to the rash and negligent driving by the 2nd respondent, the driver of the bus bearing registration number JH1G-7643, which collided with the motorcycle on which the appellant was a pillion rider. (b) If so, the quantum of compensation that would become payable to the appellant/claimant? 6. Normally, in such matters, it is a duty of the Tribunal to answer all the issues so that if the Tribunal’s view on rashness and negligence is reversed, the Appellate Court need not independently assess the quantum. In this case, however, the Tribunal, after holding that rashness and negligence had not been proved, declined to decide the issue of compensation. Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:11304 7. Besides, the Presiding Officer, who has made the impugned judgment and award, failed to appreciate that the proceedings for compensation under the M.V. Act are to some extent summary in nature. Strict rules of the Evidence Act, therefore, would ordinarily not apply to such matters. 8. In the Claim Petition instituted by the present appellant’s brother, [Claim Case No 21/2008 decided on 10.09.2014], who was riding the same motorcycle on which the appellant/claimant was riding pillion in respect of the very same accident that took place on 10.12.2017, had already held that the Bus Driver (R-2) was rash and negligent, and therefore, responsible for the accident. Therefore, on the specious plea that the FIR that was registered against the Bus Driver was produced but not proved, the Tribunal was not justified in answering the issue of rashness and negligence against the appellant herein. Based on such a hyper-technical plea, the claim petition should not have been dismissed in its entirety. 9. In any event, the record shows that the FIR against the Bus Driver was produced, though it may not have been exhibited. Even now, the appellant has filed an application to admit additional evidence, inter alia, seeking the invocation of powers similar to those vested in a Court under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC. This FIR was not challenged as being some non-genuine document. 10. Apart from the FIR, there is oral evidence on record, which is also sufficient to establish rashness and negligence on the part of the Bus Driver. The factum of the accident was never disputed. A bus is a Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:11304 much larger and heavier vehicle than a motorcycle. Therefore, the standard of care expected of a Bus Driver would be much greater than that of the motorcycle rider. 11. Based on the oral and documentary evidence on record and applying the test of preponderance of probability, the issue of all rashness and negligence should have been answered in favour of the appellant. This was more so because, regarding the same accident, the Tribunal had already concluded the Bus Driver was rash and negligent. This finding of the Tribunal, in the connected claim case no. 21/2008, was never challenged. 12. Therefore, even without the need to admit any additional evidence, this issue of rashness and negligence will have to be decided in favour of the appellant herein. Upon consideration of the application, however, this conclusion is further strengthened. The first point for determination is answered accordingly. 13. The second point is about the quantum of compensation payable to the appellant. 14. The evidence on record thus suggests that the appellant was 20 years old and working as a Hardware Technician-Cum-Teacher. Though documentary evidence has not been produced, the appellant has claimed a monthly income of Rs. 6,000/-. 15. Mr. Pratiyush Kumar, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, submits that this figure is quite exaggerated because at the relevant time, the Minimum Wage Notification provided for wages of hardly Rs.3,000/- per month. Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:11304 16. Since there is evidence that the appellant is a Hardware Technician-Cum Teacher, an income of about Rs. 200/- per day does not seem unreasonable. The Minimum Wage Notification, as now stands, refers only to the minimum. From the oral evidence on record, which was only sought to be denied by raising some suggestions during the cross-examination, the appellant’s monthly income can, in the facts of this case, safely be taken as Rs. 6,000/- per month. 17. There is a medical certificate on record which refers to the appellant’s suffering a disability of 45% on account of the accident injury to his leg. There is also evidence of the appellant’s hospitalisation for about five months. Considering the duties that the appellant was discharging, the medical disability and a functional disability could be said to be the same, i.e. 45%. This is because there is no evidence that the appellant, after the accident, was unable to continue his work as a Hardware Technician or a Teacher. At the same time, it is evident that such functioning would have been seriously impaired on account of the disability suffered by him in the motor accident. 18. Based on the appellant’s monthly income of Rs. 6,000/-, an addition of 40% is due for future prospects. This would mean that the appellant’s monthly income can be safely taken as Rs. 8,400/-. The multiplier in this case is 18, and, based on all this, the compensation payable to the appellant for the disability suffered by him in the motor accident would come to Rs. 8,16,480/-. Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:11304 19. There is evidence about the appellant being hospitalised for about five months. All this would indeed involve pain and suffering. This would also impact, to some extent, the appellant’s longevity of life, not to mention the loss of income to some extent. 20. For all the above reasons, the compensation amount can be safely determined at Rs. 9,50,000/- as representing the just compensation. This amount will carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition until payment. 21. Mr. Pratiyush Kumar, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, submits that if cognizance has to be taken on the judgment and award made by Tribunal in Claim Case No.21 of 2008 instituted by the appellant’s brother who was riding the motorcycle, then, this Court must consider making a ‘pay and recovery’ order as was made in Claim Case No.21 of 2008. Such an order was made because there was evidence that the Bus which was involved in the accident was playing without a permit, as mentioned in para-9 of the judgment and award dated 10th of September 2014 disposing of Claim Case No.21 of 2008. 22. This submission deserves to be accepted in the peculiar facts of the present case. This is because we are concerned with the same accident involving the same vehicles. 23. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The Respondents 1, 2 and 3 are jointly and severally directed to pay the appellant compensation of Rs.9,50,000/-, together with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of the claim petition till effective payment. Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:11304 24. The 3rd respondent/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount, along with interest, in this Court within two months after giving intimation to the Member Secretary of JHALSA, and if possible, the appellant herein. The Member Secretary of JHALSA must try to contact the appellant, obtain his identity and bank details and supply them to the Registry, so that the Registry can directly transfer this compensation amount into the appellant’s bank account. 25. However, the 3rd respondent/Insurance Company, after depositing/ paying this amount as aforesaid to the appellant, shall be entitled to recover the same from the 1st respondent, i.e. the owner of the Bus and the policy holder. 26. In this case, under no circumstances should the amount be paid to the appellant other than through regular banking channels. 27. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms without any order for costs. 28. I.A. No. 4956 of 2022 is also disposed of. (M.S. Sonak, C.J.) April, 18, 2026 Manoj/Sharda/- Uploaded on 20-Apr-26