Mr. A. S. Kulkarni, Advocate for v. Salve
Facts
(1) fa-2954-2024IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABADFIRST APPEAL NO.2954 OF 2024Bandu Vithal HingadeSince deceased through Legal Heirs1A.Anita w/o. Bandu Hingade,Age: 40 years, Occ.: Household,1B.Ramesh s/o. Bandu Hingade,Age: 19 years, Occ.: Labour,1C.Manu @ Monika d/o. Bandu Hingade,Age: 22 years, Occ.: Nil.All R/o. Post Chatari, Tal. Umarkhed,Dist. Yawatmal...Appellants(Ori. Claimants)Versus1.Deepak S/o. Kishan Watore,Age: Major, Occu. Business,R/o. Chatari, Tq. Umarkhed, Dist. Yavatmal.2.The New Indian Assurance Co. Ltd.Through it’s Branch Manager,Branch at Lahoti Complex, Nanded,Tq. and Dist. Nanded..Respondents (Original Respondents) …Mr. A. S. Kulkarni, Advocate for Appellants.Mr. R. S. Wathore and Mr. S. V. Salve, Advocate for RespondentNo.1.Mrs. Anagha Rotte, Advocate for Respondent No.2.… CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.RESERVED ON: 22nd APRIL, 2025.PRONOUNCED ON: 25th APRIL, 2025. (2) fa-2954-2024JUDGMENT:- 1.The appellant/original claimant filed this Appeal underSection 173 of Motor Vehicles Act seeking enhancement ofcompensation, being aggrieved by judgment and award dated07.02.2017 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nanded inM.A.C.P. No.6/2014. (Hereinafter, parties are referred to by theiroriginal status for the sake of convenience and brevity).2.The claimant suffered injuries in motor vehicular accidentdated 02.08.2012 while he was traveling in auto rickshaw bearingRegistration No.MH-29-V-81023. It collided against motorcyclebearing Registration No.MH-29-J-3034. According to claimant,accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part ofauto rickshaw driver. He suffered amputation of right leg belowknee due to injury caused in accident. Consequently, lost hisearning capacity. He was working as Meson and used to earnRs.6000/- per month before accident. His permanent disability isassessed to 75% by Medical Officer.3.The claim was contested by respondents i.e. owner andinsurer of auto rickshaw by filing written statement.4.The Tribunal after considering rival contentions and evidencetendered into service, accepted case of claimant and passed anaward of Rs.7,20,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from (3) fa-2954-2024the date of institution of claim petition. Although Tribunalaccepted defence of Insurance Company on the point of drivinglicence, directed him to satisfy award at first instance and recovercompensation amount from owner of auto rickshaw.5.Mr. Kulkarni, learned Advocate appearing for appellantswould submit that Tribunal exercising jurisdiction underprovisions of Motor Vehicles Act has to assess just compensation interms of Section 168. In present case, Tribunal has awardedmeager compensation. According to him, claimant being Mesonlost his 100% earning capacity due to amputation of right leg belowknee. Nothing has been awarded towards permanent disablement.The paltry sum is awarded towards non-pecuniary heads. Hewould, therefore, urge to modify award for just compensation.6.Per contra, Mrs. Rotte, learned Advocate appearing forrespondent no.2/Insurance Company supports award as passed byTribunal. She submits that claimant failed to prove his occupationand income as Meson. The incident occurred in the year 2012.Accordingly, notional income is fixed @ Rs.5000/- per month, whichis appropriate looking to the minimum wages at relevant time. Shewould further submit that Tribunal granted adequatecompensation towards non-pecuniary heads. There is no scope forfurther enhancement.
Legal Reasoning
(4) fa-2954-20247.Having considered submissions advanced, it can be observedthat there is no dispute as regards to accident and eventualamputation of leg of claimant. Only point for consideration raisedbefore this Court is as to assessment of just compensation.8.Admittedly, claimant was hospitalized from 03.08.2012 to12.09.2012 after accident. During hospitalization, his right leg hasbeen amputated below knee. His second hospitalization was from31.12.2014 to 07.01.2015, during which a second operation wasperformed on his leg. Dr. Rajesh Ambulgekar, Head of Departmentat Shakarrao Chavan Government Medical College, Nandedtestified about permanent disablement of 75%. The disabilitycertificate has been issued by Medical Board in that regard.9.The claimant has specifically averred that he used to work asMeson prior to accident. The Tribunal has also accepted aforesaidcontentions, however, assumed notional income @ Rs.5000/- permonth. There is no rational behind fixing notional income @Rs.5000/-. If claimant was working as Meson, he ought to beconsidered as skilled worker. Therefore, going by minimum wagesapplicable to skill worker in District Nanded, there was nodifficulty in accepting case of claimant that he was earningRs.6000/- per month. This Court finds that modification isnecessary in findings of Tribunal on this point. The Tribunal (5) fa-2954-2024applied addition of 25% towards future prospects and adoptedmultiplier of 15, which need not be disturbed. The Tribunalawarded Rs.25,000/- towards pain and sufferings. However, nocompensation is awarded towards permanent disablement, loss ofamenities in life. It is trite that permanent disablement itself isindependent head for grant of compensation as laid by SupremeCourt of India in case of S. Manickam Vs. MetropolitanTransport Corporation Ltd.1. The claimant suffered amputationof right leg at the age of 40 years. Therefore, minimumcompensation of Rs.2,00,000/- needs to be awarded under caption ofpermanent disablement. The person suffering amputation of rightleg would suffer not only physical pains during period ofhospitalization or healing of injuries, but such pain shall be lifelong apart from mental trauma leading to frustration in life. Inthat view of the matter, claimant would be entitled forcompensation of Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of pain and suffering,loss of amenities and expectation of life. The claimant must havespent huge amount for transportation. Even he would incur hugeexpenses towards transportation in future. On this count also, it isappropriate to grant compensation of Rs.50,000/-. Thecompensation granted by Tribunal towards special diet andattendant charges need not be disturbed. In result, compensationneeds to be re-assessed as under:1(2013) 12 SCC 603. (6) fa-2954-2024Sr.No.HeadsAmount (Rs.)1Annual Income (Rs.6000 x 12)Rs.72,000/-2Addition of 25% towards future prospects(Rs.72,000/- + Rs.18,000/-) =Rs.90,000/-375% loss of future earning due to permanentdisablement 90,000/- x 75 / 100 = Rs.67,500/-4Apply multiplier of ‘18’ (Rs.67,500 x 15)Rs.10,12,500/-5Permanent disablementRs.2,00,000/-6Pain and sufferingsRs.1,00,000/-7Transportation chargesRs.50,000/-8Special Diet and Attendant chargesRs.15,000/-TOTALRs.13,77,500/-10.So far as interest on compensation amount is concerned, ithas been pointed out that present Appeal was filed alongwithapplication for delay condonation. This Court while condoningdelay observed that entitlement of claimant to receive interest fordelayed period shall be considered at the time of final hearing ofAppeal. Section 171 of the Motor Vehicle Act gives discretion forgrant of interest. In present case, it is apparent that Appeal waspresented with huge delay of 469 days. The respondents cannot beburdened for interest for that period. Therefore, claimant shall notbe entitled for the interest to that extent. However, entitlement ofpendente lite interest on the compensation amount cannot bedenied for period of pendency of claim and present Appeal. Hence,compensation amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annumexcluding delayed period. (7) fa-2954-202411.In that view of the matter, appeal deserves to beallowed. Hence, following order: -ORDERi.First Appeal is partly allowed.ii.The judgment and award dated 07.02.2017 passed by theMotor Accident Claim Tribunal, Nanded in M.A.C.P. No.6/2014 ishereby modified.iii.The appellant/claimant is held entitled for compensation ofRs.13,77,500/- (Rs. Thirteen Lakhs Seventy Seven Thousand FiveHundred only) from respondents alongwith interest @ 6% perannum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization ofthe amount (inclusive of amount of ‘NFL’) except for the period ofdelay of 469 days caused in filing this Appeal.iv.The compensation amount already paid/released inpursuance to the impugned award shall be appropriated.v.Rest of award as passed by Tribunal shall apply mutatismutandis to modified award in this Appeal.vi.Award be drawn up on payment of deficit court fees.(S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR)JUDGEDevendra/April-2025