High Court
Legal Reasoning
1-FA-3853-191 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABADFIRST APPEAL NO.3853 OF 2019.The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.Through its Br. Manager,Shivaji Chowk, Parbhani.Through its authorized signatory,Administrative Officer, D.O.I.,Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,Aurangabad..... Appellant/ Orig. Respondent No.2VERSUS1.Mahada @ Madhav S/o Baliram TekaleAge: 47 years, Occu.: Private Service(Now Nil), R/o. Kesapur, Tq & Dist. Hingoli. .... Orig. Claimant2.Shivprasad S/o Sureshappa BhogaonkarAge: 30 years, Occu.: Business,R/o Near Bus Stand, Sengaon,Tq. Sengaon, Dist. Hingoli. .... Respondents/ (Orig. Claimant and Respondent No.1)......Mr. D.P. Deshpande, Advocate for ApplicantMr. S.V. Suryawanshi, Advocate for Respondent No.1Mr. P.S. Agrawal, Advocate for Respondent No.2...... [CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.] Reserved on : 04.07.2024Pronounced on: 10.07.2024ORDER :1.This first appeal filed by appellant/insurancecompany challenges the judgment passed by the MotorAccident Claims Tribunal, Hingoli, in M.A.C.P. No.150/2014.S.P. Rane 1 of 7 1-FA-3853-192 2.On 27.07.2013 in the evening, Gangadhar S/o.Mahada @ Madhav Tekale was proceeding towards villageUmra on motorcycle along with his father Mahada and motherSumitrabai. When they reached in the vicinity of Narsi Namdeovillage on Hingoli-Narsi road, one Tata Indica car bearing No.MH-38-2227 came from opposite direction in high speed andgave dash to the motorcycle. All the three persons onmotorcycle fell down. Gangadhar, Mahada and Sumitrabai hadsuffered serious injuries. They were shifted to Madhav Hospitalat Hingoli, and thereafter, they were shifted to Nanded forbetter treatment. On 01.08.2013, Sumitrabai expired atSanjivani Hospital, Nanded. Mahada was indoor patient at SaiHospital, Nanded from 27.07.2013 to 24.08.2013. Gangadhartook treatment in the Hospital between 27.07.2013 to24.08.2013 and then from 17.09.2013 to 25.09.2013.In the accident, Gangadhar suffered fracture to hisfemur L-4 on right thigh. By filing M.A.C.P. No.148/2014, heclaimed compensation of Rs.6,30,000/-.Mahada suffered fracture to his femur of right legand facture T/F left leg with CLW over head. By filing M.A.C.P.No.150/2014, he claimed compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-,which was subsequently restricted to Rs.8,00,000/-.S.P. Rane 2 of 7 1-FA-3853-193 For Sumitrabai’s death, Gangadhar and Mahada filedM.A.C.P. No.149/2014, claiming compensation ofRs.13,00,000/-.3.The Tribunal passed a common judgment andallowed M.A.C.P. No.148/2014 in excess, M.A.C.P.No.149/2014 partly and M.A.C.P. No.150/2014 in excess. Theinsurance company is aggrieved by the quantum ofcompensation awarded in M.A.C.P. No.150/2014.4.Heard the learned Advocate for appellant/insurancecompany, learned advocate for respondent no.1/originalclaimant and learned advocate for respondent No.2.5.Learned advocate for appellant/insurance companysubmits that respondent no.1/claimant claimed that he wasdoing the job of operator at Vitthal Stone crusher. At the timeof accident he was earning salary of Rs.9,000/- per month.Certificate to that effect was issued by the employer of theclaimant and was produced on record by the claimant himselfand the author of the said certificate was not examined, andtherefore, the certificate is not proved on record, andtherefore, the Tribunal has erred in relying on the saidcertificate in calculating the notional income of the claimant.He submits that at the most, the notional income ofS.P. Rane 3 of 7 1-FA-3853-194 respondent no.1/claimant could have been taken @ Rs.200/-per day i.e. 6,000/- per month. He submits that Doctor hasnot stated in his evidence that claimant would not be in aposition to work in future. He submits that the Tribunal hasawarded exorbitant compensation towards physical and mentalpain @ 2,50,000/-, which should have been @ Rs.1,00,000/-.The Tribunal has also erroneously awarded Rs.27,000/-towards wages of three months holding that claimant was notable to resume his labour work immediately and the period ofhealing can be taken at three months. He, therefore, submitsthat exorbitant amount of compensation is awarded toclaimant by the Tribunal and the same needs to be reduced. 6.Per contra, learned advocate for respondentno.1/claimant supported the impugned judgment of theTribunal. He submits that the Tribunal has rightly held thenotional income of claimant @ Rs.9,000/- per month on thebasis of employer’s certificate produced by him. He submitsthat since future prospectus are not awarded by the Tribunal,the amount of Rs.2,50,000/- is not liable to be interfered with.If we calculate future prospectus, the calculation would cometo that only. S.P. Rane 4 of 7 1-FA-3853-195 7.Heard at length. Perused the record. 8.It is settled legal position that, “claimants weremerely to establish their case on the touchstone ofpreponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyondreasonable doubt could not have been applied. [Bimla Deviand Others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation andOthers, (2009) 13 SCC, 530 ] 9.In Anita Sharma and Others Vs. New IndiaAssurance Company Limited and Another, (2021) 1 SCC 171,the Apex Court has held;“Equally, we are concerned over the failure ofthe High Court to be cognizant of the fact thatstrict principles of evidence and standards ofproof like in a criminal trial are inapplicable inMACT claim cases. The standard of proof in suchlike matters is one of preponderance ofprobabilities, rather than beyond reasonabledoubt” .10.It is settled legal position that, “the Tribunalexercising quasi-judicial functions are not Courts, andtherefore, they are not bound to follow the procedureprescribed for trial of actions in Courts nor they are bound bystrict rules of evidence”. [State of Mysore Vs. S.S. Makapur,(1964) I LLJ 24 SC ]S.P. Rane 5 of 7
Legal Reasoning
1-FA-3853-196 11.Accident and injuries suffered by claimant in theaccident are not in dispute. Claimant has examined Doctor insupport of his claim, who has stated that claimant was havingfracture of supracondylar femur right side with fracture oftibia fibula of right side with C.L.W. over head. Two surgerieswere carried out on claimant. Supracondylar plating was doneand nailing was done on tibia fibula of left side. Doctor hasopined that due to the operation, leg of claimant hasshortened and he can walk, but will suffer with some deformityand stiffness in knee. Record indicates that claimant hassuffered 25% permanent disability for his entire life.Claimant has placed on record salary certificateissued by Vitthal Stone Crusher, Kesapur, Taluka and DistrictHingoli, showing that he was working as operator at StoneCrusher and was getting Rs.300/- per day wages. Suggestionof insurance company that he was not earing that much wagesis strongly denied by claimant and that the certificate is false. 12.In the light of aforesaid legal position, there is nomerit in the contention of insurance company that, the salarycertificate is not proved by examining the author. The TribunalS.P. Rane 6 of 7 1-FA-3853-197 is justified in assessing the income of claimant @ Rs.9,000/-per month. 13.Submission of appellant that only Rs.1,00,000/-should have granted under the head of physical and mentalsufferings and the Tribunal erred in awarding Rs.2,50,000/- isnot acceptable as the Tribunal has failed to awardcompensation under the head of loss of future prospectus. Ifloss of future prospectus is to be calculated @ 25% of theannual income, it would come to Rs.27,000/-, therefore, totalannual income would come to Rs. 1,08,000 + Rs.27,000 =Rs.1,35,000/-. Claimant was therefore entitled forcompensation of Rs.1,35,000/- for future prospectus plusRs.1,00,000/- towards physical and mental sufferings equalsto Rs.2,35,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,50,000/-,which need not be interfered with in these facts. 14.The Tribunal has rightly appreciated the material onrecord and has awarded fair compensation to the claimant.There is no merit in the first appeal. The first appeal isdismissed. [NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI ] JUDGE S.P. Rane 7 of 7