High Court
Legal Reasoning
932 FA NO. 603 OF 2022IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADFIRST APPEAL NO. 603 OF 2022Akshay Vinod @ Vinayak Salve,Age – 27 years, Occ – Nil,R/o. LandeVasti, Behind ShripadMarriage Hall, Shevgaon,Tq. Sheogaon, Dist. Ahmednagar ….Appellant (Orig. Claimant)VERSUS1]The Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Ambar Plaza, Station Road,Opposite old bust stand,Ahmednagar.2]Dattatraya Rakhama Shete,Age : Major, occu. Agriculture.R/o. Devibhoyare, Tq. Parner,Dist. Ahmednagar.3]Chandrakant Dinkar Chavan,Age : Major, occu. Driver.R/o. Chavan Galli, Newase Kd,Tq. Newasa, Dist. Ahmednagar..…Respondent (Orig. Respondents)…•Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Sachin S. Kotkar•Advocate for Respondent No. 1 : Mr. V. N. Upadhe•Advocate for Respondent No. 2 : Mr. D. R. Jaybhar …CORAM :ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.RESERVED ON :30.09.2025PRONOUNCED ON 14.10.2025Jhs/1/8 932 FA NO. 603 OF 2022JUDGMENT :1. The appellant, being the original claimant, is aggrieved anddissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by theTribunal The present appeal is filed against the impugned judgmentand award dated 03.07.2019, passed by the learned Member, MotorAccident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Newasa in Motor Accident ClaimPetition No. 83 of 2015. The appellant contends that the Tribunalinadequately assessed the extent of functional disability and entirelyoverlooked compensation for future prospects. Consequently, theappellant has filed the present appeal under the provisions of Section173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking an enhancement of thecompensation awarded.FACTUAL MATRIX2.Case before the learned Tribunal was that, on 24.12.2014, theappellant, aged 22 years old, was riding his motorcycle bearingregistration no. MH-16/BE-5578, with a pillion rider, and proceedingfrom Bhenda factory to Shevgaon. A tempo, bearing registration no.MH-16/Q-9355, owned by respondent no. 2, driven by respondentno. 3, and insured with respondent no. 1, came from the oppositedirection in a rash and negligent manner and gave dash to theappellant’s motorcycle. As a result, the appellant sustained seriousJhs/2/8
Legal Reasoning
932 FA NO. 603 OF 2022injuries in the accident, including comminuted fractures of the rightfemur, tibia, and fibula, along with fractures of the right 3rd and 5thmetacarpals. He also suffered a brachial plexus injury, resulting insignificant impairment of limb function and permanent disability. Hewas hospitalized and treated at Sancheti Hospital, Pune, and apermanent disability certificate was issued by the treating doctor,indicating permanent disability of 72%.3.At the time of the accident, the appellant was a second-yearB.Sc. Student, aspiring to pursue postgraduate studies (M.Sc. orLL.B.), and had also been selected for employment in Mumbai Metro,which he could not join due to the injuries. A claim ofRs. 50,00,000/- was raised under various heads. However, thelearned Tribunal awarded only Rs. 10,32,000/-, which included Rs.4,32,000/- towards loss of future income, calculated by taking 50%functional disability and a notional income of Rs. 4,000/- per month,and Rs. 6,00,000/- towards medical expenses, which the appellantcontends is grossly inadequate.SUBMISSIONSOn Behalf of the Appellant:-4.Mr. S. S. Kotkar, learned counsel for the appellant, contendsthat the learned Tribunal arbitrarily considered only 50% functionalJhs/3/8 932 FA NO. 603 OF 2022disability, despite the medical certificate certifying 72% permanentdisability. He further contends that the learned Tribunal failed toaward any amount towards future prospect, contrary to settled legalprinciples, and assessed unrealistically low notional income of Rs.4,000/- per month, overlooking the appellant’s academic backgroundand future earning potential.5.In support of his submissions, learned counsel places relianceon the rulings of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of NationalInsurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, Sarla Vermav. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121, Kajal v. JagdishChand, (2020) 4 SCC 413, Baby Sakshi Grewal v. Manzoor AhmadSimon & Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3692.On Behalf of Respondent No. 16.Learned counsel for the respondents supports the findings ofthe learned Tribunal but fairly concedes that the learned Tribunal didnot award future prospects. It is not in dispute that the appellant wasa student and was not in formal employment at the relevant time.ANALYSIS7.Heard. Perused the record and evidence. There is no dispute asto the occurrence of the accident on 24.12.2014 or the rash andnegligent driving by the driver of the tempo involved. The onlyJhs/4/8 932 FA NO. 603 OF 2022question in this appeal is whether the quantum of compensationawarded by the learned Tribunal is just and fair, particularly on twoaspects: (i) The percentage of disability considered; and (ii) Non-award of compensation towards future prospects.8.The learned Tribunal assessed notional income at Rs. 4,000/-per month, based on the fact that the appellant was a student at thetime of incident, and computed compensation by applying 50%functional disability. The Tribunal in this regard finding place inparagraph nos. 7 and 8. 9.The learned Tribunal assessed the appellant’s notional incomeat Rs. 4,000/- per month and applied 50% functional disability, basedsolely on its own estimation, despite a medical certificate certifying72% permanent disability.10.The appellant, a 22-year-old student, at the time of theaccident, had a clear academic path and was even selected foremployment in Mumbai Metro, which he could not join due to hisinjuries. Even considering his educational background and potential,he was entitled to higher notional income and future prospects.11.In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the appellantplaced reliance on key Supreme Court decisions. In the case ofPranay Sethi, (Supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court held that 40% futureJhs/5/8 932 FA NO. 603 OF 2022prospects must be added for students and self-employed individuals.In case of Kajal vs. Jagdish Chand, (Supra) the appellant’s young ageand academic record were held to be justified for enhancedcompensation. the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Baby SakshiGrewal (Supra) reaffirmed that students' future earning capacitymust be considered. As per Sarla Verma, (Supra) a multiplier of 18 isapplicable for individuals aged between 21–25 years.12.In S. Mohammed Hakkim Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. AndOrs., MANU/SC/0994/2025, the Hon’ble Apex Court has exercisedpowers under Section 142 of the Constitution of India and has takeninto account the facts that the victim therein, who was 20 years ofage at the time of accident, was already in the 3rd year ofEngineering College and considered Rs.20,000/- as notional incomeof the victim therein, and then calculations were made on the saidbasis.13.In view of the above submissions, this Court is of the view that,it would be appropriate to consider monthly income of appellant @Rs. 10,000 per month. With 40% (i.e. Rs.4,000/-) addition towardsfuture prospects, the total monthly income comes to Rs. 14,000/-, i.e.Rs. 1,68,000/- (i.e. Rs.14,000 x 12) per annum. Apart from this, inview of evidence of treating doctor at Exhibit – 36, it would be properand justified to consider 72% functional disability.Jhs/6/8
Decision
932 FA NO. 603 OF 202214.Based on the aforesaid discussion, calculation of compensationis as under:-Sr.No.Head of CompensationAmount (Rs.)1.Notional IncomeRs. 10,000/- per month2.Add: 40% Future ProspectsRs. 4,000/-3.Total Monthly IncomeRs. 14,000/-4.Annual Income(Rs. 14,000 × 12 ) Rs. 1,68,000/-5.Functional Disability (72%)(Rs. 1,68,000 × 72%) Rs. 1,20,960/-6.Multiplier 18(As applied by the Tribunal)(Rs. 1,20,960 × 18 ) Rs. 21,77,280/-7.Medical Expenses(As awarded by the Tribunal)Rs. 6,00,000/-11.Total CompensationRs. 27,77,280/-12.(-) Compensation awarded by M.A.C.TRs. 10,32,000/-13.Enhanced Compensation(Rs. 27,77,280 – Rs. 10,32,000/-)Rs. 17,45,280/-15.In the result, following order is passed :-O R D E RA)The appeal is partly allowed.B)The impugned judgment and award dated 03.07.2019,passed by the learned member, M.A.C.T., Beed inM.A.C.P. No. 83 of 2015, is modified.Jhs/7/8 932 FA NO. 603 OF 2022C)The respondent Nos. 1 – Insurance Company to pay theenhanced compensation of Rs. 17,45,280/- (RupeesSeventeen Lakh Fourty-five Thousand Two HundredEighty Only), to the claimant within 12 weeks fromtoday along with interest @ 9% per annum from the dateof registration of claim petition till its realization.D)Modified award be prepared accordingly.E)Claimant to pay court fees on enhanced compensation asper rules.F)On deposit of the amount by respondent No. 1 –Insurance Company, the Tribunal shall disburse theamount to the appellant / original claimant after dueidentification and verification, and only upon compliancewith any deficit court fees, if applicable.( ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J. )Jhs/8/8