High Court
Legal Reasoning
(1) FA-997-2002.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABADFIRST APPEAL NO.997 OF 2002WITHCIVIL APPLICATION NO.7281 OF 2002INFIRST APPEAL NO.997 OF 2002Prasanna S/o V. Rangappa, Died Through LR'S1.B. Jayaratna w/o Prasannakumar Rangappa,Age: 60Years, Occ.: Household, R/o. 46-1, 5th Cross, 7th Block, Jatanagar, west banglore- 82.2.V.P. Smita d/o Prasannakumar Rangappa,Age: 30 Years, Occ.: Nil,R/o As above.3.V.P. Sneha d/o Prasannakumar Rangappa,Age: 28 Years, Occ.: Nil,R/o As above.4.V.P. Shreyas S/o Prasannakumar Rangappa,Age: 26 Years, Occ.: Nil,R/o As above...AppellantsVersus1.Narsimha s/o Guchayya,Age 43 years, Occu. Driver Secunderabad Depot.(Deleted as per order below Exh.24, dt. 5/7/99, passed by the M.A.C.T. Beed)2.Depot Manager,Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Secunderabad. (AP)3.The General Manager,Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Hyderabad (AP)...Respondents (Ori. Resps.1 to 3) (2) FA-997-2002.odt…Mr. B. B. Kulkarni, Advocate for the Appellants.Mr. P. K. Joshi, Advocate for Respondent No.2.Mr. A. B. Dhongade, Advocate for Respondent No.3.… CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.RESERVED ON : 18th APRIL, 2024.PRONOUNCED ON: 29th APRIL, 2024.JUDGMENT:- 1.Admit.2.The learned Advocates appearing for respective respondentswaives notice. With the consent of the parties, matter is taken upfor final hearing. 3.The appellant / original claimant has filed this Appeal underSection 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, impugning judgment andaward dated 26.11.2001 passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal,Beed in M.A.C.P. No.74/1994.4.On death of the original appellants-claimants, his legal heirsare pursuing this appeal.5.Mr. Kulkarni, learned Advocate appearing for the appellantsubmits that on 29.07.1993 original claimant-Prasannakumar metwith motor accident while he was traveling in the S.T. Bus.Because of the accident, he suffered multiple injuries to head, bothlegs, chest and spine. Although, he was treated at varioushospitals, including Sancheti Hospital at Pune, he sufferedpermanent disablement to the extent of 25%. Therefore claim forcompensation was raised by him before Tribunal invokingprovisions of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act. The Tribunalpleased to pass an award of Rs.1,35,686/- alongwith interest @ of (3) FA-997-2002.odt9% per annum in favour of the claimant. Aggrieved by theinadequacy of compensation, he approached this Court in presentAppeal. During the pendency of this Appeal, Civil ApplicationNo.7281/2002 was filed seeking amendment in claim petition tobring on record, supervening events leading to pecuniary losses toclaimant. Another Civil Application No.7279/2002 was filedseeking permission to adduce additional evidence. This Court videorder dated 05.03.2012 allowed the application and permitted theamendment in the original claim petition and relegated parties toTribunal with limited direction to record the finding as toadditional pleadings and remit back the case to this Courtalongwith such findings.6.In pursuance of the said directions amendment was carriedin the original claim petition and documents were produced. Theevidence of the witnesses was recorded. The Tribunal recorded itsfinding in pursuance of the additional pleadings and evidence andheld that the claimants are entitled for additional compensation ofRs.4,94,639/-. Mr. Kulkarni, learned Advocate would furthersubmit that the findings so recorded by the Tribunal under itsorder dated 10.07.2012 is not challenged by the respondents. Assuch it attained finality. He would, therefore, submit that theclaim in this appeal to the extent of loss of earning to the claimantduring the period of hospitalization has been redressed. However,the claimants would be entitled for the non-pecuniary losses asclaimed by way of amendment in the petition.7.Mr. Dhongade, learned Advocate appearing for respondentno.3 submits that the claimant has already received adequatecompensation under the principal award and also held entitled forthe additional compensation of Rs.4,94,639/- as per the findings
Legal Reasoning
(4) FA-997-2002.odtrecorded under order dated 10.07.2012. There is no further scopeto grant any enhancement to the appellants. He would submit thatin view of the findings recorded by the Tribunal, no furtherenhancement needs to be granted.8.Having considered submissions advanced by the learnedAdvocate appearing for the respective parties and on perusal of thepleadings and evidence tendered before us, it can be observed thatin a principal award passed by the Tribunal, the compensation ofRs.1,35,686/- is awarded, which includes the compensation towardsmedical expenses and hospitalization, special diet and conveyance,economic loss of salary for the period of six months during thetreatment period and compensation towards pains, sufferings,mental agonies and loss of enjoyment of life. After amendment ofthe claim petition, in pursuance to the order passed by this Courtevidence has been recorded before the Tribunal and finding soarrived is transmitted to this Court which holds claimants areentitle for additional compensation of Rs.4,94,639/-. Theenhancement is towards loss of salary suffered by claimant for theperiod from March 1997 to July 2000 i.e. for 41 months. Thearrears are accounted towards implementation of 5th PayCommission. The finding so recorded by the Tribunal is notassailed by the respondents by filing appeal or objection in thisappeal. Although on last hearing matter was specificallyadjourned to enable Mr. Dhongade, learned Advocate to takeinstructions from respondent no.3 as regards to any objection to thefindings recorded by the Tribunal, he submits that no specificinstructions in that regard are received to him. Accordingly, hemade his submissions on the basis of the material available onrecord. In that view of the matter, the findings recorded by the (5) FA-997-2002.odtTribunal post amendment of the petition will have to be treated asmerged in the principal award dated 26.11.2001.9.So far as the contentions of the claimants that the loss offuture earning, future medical expenses, loss of amenities and lossof expectation in life is not independently considered, this courtfinds that the Tribunal has awarded Rs.30,000/- on that count.Further nothing is placed on record to demonstrate any medicalexpenses incurred by the claimant apart from those have beenalready considered by Tribunal. Pertinently, non-consideration ofsuch additional claim raised by way of amendment is notindependently assailed by incorporating additional grounds in theappeal memo. In that view of the matter, this Court finds that theclaimants would be entitled for the additional compensation asquantified by the Tribunal as per findings recorded in the orderdated 10.07.2012 and award needs to modified by incorporatingthat amount in the principal award dated 26.11.2001. Hence, thefollowing order:ORDERa.First Appeal is partly allowed with proportionate cost.b.The judgment and award dated 26.11.2001 passed by theMotor Accident Claim Tribunal, Beed in M.A.C.P. No.74/1994 ismodified as under:(i)Respondent Nos.2 and 3 do pay the compensation ofRs.6,30,325/- alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. withproportionate cost to the appellants.(ii)The amount of compensation already paid/disbursed as peraward of Tribunal be appropriated against the modifiedaward. (6) FA-997-2002.odt(iii)The award be drawn accordingly on payment of deficit Courtfees, if any.(iv)On deposit of the compensation amount in terms of themodified award, the same be disbursed to the appellants inequal proportion.c.In view of disposal of First Appeal, pending Civil Applications stand disposed of.(S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR)JUDGEDevendra/April-2024