# Dr. Suresh Prasad Tripathi v. Jai Ram Shukla & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 5 ILRA 1265
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-02-01
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 2008 of 2005
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Ajai Tyagi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dr-suresh-prasad-tripathi-v-jai-ram-shukla-ors-48476
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,
Section - 166 - Appeal filed by claimant -
for enhancement of compensation - Accident
is not disputed as well as insurance company
not disputed any liability - contributory
negligence of driver of Bus and Jeep involved
in accident - claimant-appellant who was a
passenger of said Bus sustained injuries -
resulting he become permanently disabled to
the tune of 50% - Tribunal Awarded Rs.
10,000/- on the ground that there is no loss
of income - medical bills and disability
certificated of claimant is highly disputed &
doubtful since only photo copies are available
on records - Disability certificate is not
conformity with the X-ray report on which
basis same is prepared - hence, learned
Tribunal rightly awarded compensation -
Appeal sans merit and is dismissed.(Para - 7,
9, 10, 11)

Appeal Dismissed. (E-11)

## Text

5 All. Dr. Suresh Prasad Tripathi Vs. Jai Ram Shukla & Ors.
1265
fails to comply with the mandatory
requirement of setting out the material
allegation and is not in accordance with the
provisions of Section 3 (1) of the Act.

13. Accordingly, the writ petition is
allowed. The impugned show cause notice
dated 01.02.2022 issued by the Additional
District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue),
Gorakhpur, under Section 3⁄4 U.P. Control
of Goondas Act, 1970 is hereby, quashed.
However, it is open to the District
Magistrate to pass a fresh order, if any
material is available against the petitioner.
----------
(2022)05ILR A1265
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.03.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA
THAKER, J.
THE HON'BLE AJAI TYAGI, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 2008 of 2005

Dr. Suresh Prasad Tripathi ...Appellant
Versus
Jai Ram Shukla & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Brijendra Kumar,Sri Krishna Kumar
Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Vipul Kumar, Sr Mohan Srivastava

Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,
Section - 166 - Appeal filed by claimant -
for enhancement of compensation - Accident
is not disputed as well as insurance company
not disputed any liability - contributory
negligence of driver of Bus and Jeep involved
in accident - claimant-appellant who was a
passenger of said Bus sustained injuries -
resulting he become permanently disabled to
the tune of 50% - Tribunal Awarded Rs.
10,000/- on the ground that there is no loss
of income - medical bills and disability
certificated of claimant is highly disputed &
doubtful since only photo copies are available
on records - Disability certificate is not
conformity with the X-ray report on which
basis same is prepared - hence, learned
Tribunal rightly awarded compensation -
Appeal sans merit and is dismissed.(Para - 7,
9, 10, 11)

Appeal Dismissed. (E-11)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajai Tyagi, J.)

1. This appeal is preferred by the
claimant-appellant for enhancement of
compensation awarded to him by Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal/First Additional
District Judge, Chitrakoot ('Tribunal', for
short), vide order dated 21.5.2005 in
M.A.C.P.
No.123/70/2001
(Dr.Suresh
Prashad Tripathi v. Jai Ram Shukla and
others) whereby claimant/appellant was
awarded Rs.10,000/-, as compensation.

2. Brief facts of the case are that
claimant/appellant was doctor in Civil
Hospital, Chitrakoot. On 3.3.2001, at about
9:00 A.M., he was going from Kervi to
Banda for an official work by bus bearing
No. U.P.70-S/8555. The driver of the bus
was driving the bus rashly and negligently
and by driving so, he hit the Jeep
No.U.P.70-J/9604 near Pand Nala Puliya,
which was coming from the opposite
direction.
In
this
accident
appellant
sustained injuries. His right leg was
fractured and he became permanently
disabled.
Only
respondent
No.3-New
Indian Assurance Company Ltd. contested
the petition and filed its written statement.

3. It was claimed by the appellant that
he incurred Rs.1,60,000/- towards payment
of medical bills and became disabled
permanently to the tune of 50%, but
1266 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
learned Tribunal awarded only Rs.10,000/-
for pain and sufferings and rest of the
prayers were declined.

4. Heard Shri Krishna Kumar Singh,
learned counsel for the appellant, Shri
Vipul Kumar, learned counsel for the
respondents and perused the record.

5. Learned counsel for the appellantclaimant
submitted
that
impugned
judgment is bad in the eye of law and
cannot be sustained as Rs.10,000/- were
awarded and no amount of medical bills
and loss of amenities et cetera was
awarded. It is submitted by learned counsel
that due to the result of the injuries
sustained in accident, appellant became
50% physically handicapped. A permanent
disability certificate was issued by Chief
Medical officer, Chitrakoot, which is on the
record PW2 - Dr.A.K. Mohan proved the
certificate. It is also submitted that Dr.A.K.
Mohan has also signed the disability
certificate, but learned Tribunal did not pay
any head towards it and declined the
compensation for disability on the ground
that claimant did not have any loss of
earning due to disability. Learned counsel
stated that this finding is erroneous because
there
is
deficiency
in
day
to
day
functioning of the appellant due to this
disability. He next submitted that medical
bills were also not reimbursed by the
Tribunal. On the basis of above arguments,
learned counsel prayed for enhancement of
compensation.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the
respondent
No.3-Insurance
Company,
submitted that appellant has submitted
claim, which is result of exaggeration. First
of all, it is said by learned counsel that all
the so-called medical bills, filed by the
claimant, are just photostat copies and the
original bills were not submitted by him.
Therefore, learned Tribunal rightly refused
to pay for those medical bills. It is also
submitted by learned counsel for the
Insurance Company that as per the
averments made in the petition, claimant
was admitted in Priti Hospital, Prayagraj,
where his leg was operated, but again no
such documentay evidence is placed on
record.
Learned
counsel
vehemently
submitted that Dr.A.K Mohan has admitted
in his evidence as PW-2 that appellant did
not receive any injury in his knee while the
disability certificate was on the basis of
injuries in thigh and knee and it is also
admitted by him that there is no loss of
income of claimant due to disability.
Moreover, claimant himself has said in his
cross-examination as PW-1 that he had loss
of income for the reason that he had to
employ two assistants for his routine-works
while he has not filed any such evidence on
record. Lastly, learend counsel appearing
for
the
respondent
No.3-Insurance
Company submitted that the real fact is that
PW2-Dr.A.K. Mohan was also serving in
District Hospital in Chitrakoot where he
was junior to claimant and that's why he
and other doctors including Chief Medical
Officer have issued a false disability
certificate, which was not believed by
learned Tribunal for incurring any loss of
income by the claimant. Hence, there is no
illegality and infirmity in the impugned
judgment which calls for any interference
by this Court.

7. In this matter, accident is not
disputed by respondent No.3, rather a
suggestion is given to appellant in his
evidence as PW1 that accident took place
due to the negligence of driver of the jeep.
It means accident is admitted. The
Insurance Company has not disputed any
liability on it because the bus was insured
5 All. Dr. Suresh Prasad Tripathi Vs. Jai Ram Shukla & Ors.
1267
on the date of accident, as per the findings
in Issue No.4. Now, we come directly to
the point of compensation.

8. It is a case of appellant that he
sustained injuries in aforesaid accident and
became permanently disabled to the tune of
50%, as per disability certificate issued by
Chief Medical Officer Chitrakoot. It is also
the case of the appellant that he incurred
Rs.1,60,000/- towards medical expenses,
but these medical bills were not considered
by the Tribunal for payment. In this regard,
it is admitted that only xerox copies of
those bills were produced by the appellant
and no explanation is given as to why the
original bills were not produced. Even on a
query made by us on this point, the learned
counsel for the appellant-claimant could
not tell any reason. Hence, learned Tribunal
has rightly refused to consider the photostat
copies of the medical bills. Apart from it, it
is relevant to mention that appellant has
claimed that his leg was operated upon in
Priti Hospital, Prayagraj, and a rod was
fitted in the leg and on this point, learned
Tribunal has opined that there is no record
of admission and discharge of the appellant
in aforesaid hospital, but perusal of record
shows that there is receipt of Priti Hospital,
Prayagraj, on the record for Rs.24,000/-,
which also mentions 8.3.2001 as date of
admission and 28.3.2001 as date of
discharge, but this document is also a xerox
copy and not the original one. Hence, this
amount also cannot be paid back to the
claimant for the xerox copy. Appellant has
not clarified as to why original medical
bills were not produced even on our asking.
Hence, we fully agree with the findings of
Tribunal with regard to non-payment of
medical bills, as they are xerox copies and
may be, being the Government Servant, he
may have taken reimbursement from
department.

9. Now, we come to the controversy
of disability certificate. Although, the
learned Tribunal has written in impugned
judgment that original disability certificate
was not produced and only its photostat
copy was on record. Even then, we
consider this point in the light of evidence
led by PW-1 Dr.A.K. Mohan, because he is
the person who has put his signature on
disability
certificate
as
Orthopaedic
Surgeon, so he has given evidence in this
regard. As per injury report of the claimant,
only two injuries were found on his body in
which injury No.1 is abrasion on the nose
and injury No.2 was on the right thigh,
which was a contusion. X-ray was adviced
but we are suprised from the statement of
Dr.A.K. Mohan that he was not sure
whether he saw this X-ray report or not.
Hence, he denied to give any statement
regarding X-ray report in his evidence. It is
pertinent
to
mention
that
disability
certificate was issued on the basis of X-ray
report, which shows two injuries; one on
thigh and the other on knee and this X-ray
report is signed by Dr.A.K. Mohan, but in
his statement before the Tribunal the said
doctor has stated that he found no injury on
the knee, yet he had shown the knee as
frozen. Further, it is clarified by him that
the knee could be freezed due to negligence
of claimant himself and it is also said by
him
if he
had
taken
physiotherapy
treatment, it could have been cured.
Appellant/claimant has nowhere said in his
statement
that
he
has
taken
any
physiotherapy
treatment.
Orthopaedic
Surgeon Dr.A.K. Mohan was the only
doctor in Medical Board, who was having
expertise in this type of injuries, sustained
by claimant, but he was not sure whether he
persued the X-ray plate/X-ray report. It is
admission of Dr.A.K. Mohan that he found
no injury on knee yet he had shown it
frozen. Moreover, it is also stated by him
1268 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
that claimant's injury could be cured by
physiotherapy and frozen knee could be the
result of his own negligence.

10. Keeping in view above facts and
circumstances of the case, the disabilty
certificate, itself, becomes doubtful and is
not in confirmity with the X-ray report, on
which basis, it is prepared. Hence, this
certificate cannot be relied on. As far as,
the expenses regarding attendants are
concerned, there is no such evidence on
record that he had paid any money to any
attendant.

11. In view of the discussion made
above, we are in full agreement with the
findings given by learned Tribunal and
claimant was rightly awarded Rs.10,000/-
with 7% per annum rate of interest for pain
and sufferings, way back in the year 2005
for the accident occured in the year 2001.

12. Hence the appeal sans merit and is
dismissed accordingly.
----------
(2022)05ILR A1268
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.03.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA
THAKER, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 2047 of 2021

Smt. Urmila Devi & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Sri Bachchu Singh & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Madhav Jain

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri A.K. Singh
Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -
Section 166, - U.P. Motor Vehicles
Rules, 1998 - Rules 220 - Appeal -
Quantum of compensation - Accident as well
as issue of negligence is not disputed -
enhancement of Compensation - deceased
was 40 years old and was doing business of
Milk & Agriculture - Multiplier of 18 should
be applied instead of 17 & deduction of 1/4th
towards personal expense instead of 1/3rd as
per law lay down in Sarla Verma's & Pranay
Sethi' Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court -
40% of income ought to be added towards
future loss of income - including Rs. 50,000/-
towards
non-pecuniary
damages
-
Compensation
computed
and
awarded
accordingly.(Para - 5, 8, 9, 12)

Appeal partly allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited: -

1. Sarla Verma & ors. Vs Delhi Transport
Corporation & anr., 2009 Law Suit (SC)

2. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi &
ors., 2017 vol. 0 Supreme (SC) 105

3. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs
U.O.I. & ors. (Decided by Hon'ble Apex Court
on 27.01.2022)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal
Jayendra Thaker, J.)

1. Heard Sri Madhav Jain, learned
counsel for the appellant and perused the
judgment and order impugned. None has
appeared for the respondent.

2. This appeal, at the behest of the
claimant, challenges the judgment and
award dated 2.8.2001 passed by the Motor
Accident
Claims
Tribunal/Additional
District Judge, Agra (hereinafter referred to
as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C.P No.552 of 1999
awarding a sum of Rs.1,77,000/- as
compensation with conditional interest at
the rate of 9%.