High Court · 2025
Facts
238-17-FA.odt {1}IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADFIRST APPEAL NO.238 OF 2017Reliance General Insurance Company,Through its Manager,R/o. Reliance General Insurance Company,Adalat Road, Aurangabad… AppellantVersus1. Bhanudas Vithoba Khodade, Age: 65 years, Occu.: Agril., R/o. Kinhi, Tq. Parner, Dist. Ahmednagar2. Vijay Bhimraj Chitale, Age: major, Occu.: Business, R/o. AP 53, Kawade Galli, Nalegaon, Ahmednagar … Respondents ......Mr. R.H. Dahat and S.S. Patil, Advocates for Appellant, Mr. R.B. Dhakne, Advocate for Respondent No.1......CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J. RESERVED ON: 08 JULY 2025 PRONOUNCED ON: 15 JULY 2025JUDGMENT :-1.The appellant/insurance company is hereby takingexception to the judgment and award dated 26.09.2016 passedby the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmednagar in M.A.C,P.No. 841 of 2011 filed at the instance of present respondentno.1/original claimant.
Legal Reasoning
238-17-FA.odt {7}10.It is settled law that, even without filing separate appealor cross-objection, claimants can seek enhancement ofcompensation in view of judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court incase of Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and Others (2003) 2 SCC274 and Jitendra Khimshankar Trivedi and Others Vs. KasamDaud Kumbhar and Others (2015) 4 SCC 237 and in view of thelaw laid down in case of Helen C. Rebello and others Vs.Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and others(1999) 1 SCC 90 and considering the facts of the present case,the quantum awarded under remaining heads seems to be justand proper. 11.In view of the above discussion, the compensation needsto be re-assessed as under:-HeadsAmount awardedTowards permanent disabilityRs.80,000Towards Medical bill &MedicinesRs.7,50,720/-Towards travelling Rs.6,000/-Towards Special foodRs.11,000/- Towards attendantRs.11,000/-Towards pains and sufferingsRs.1,00,000/-TotalRs.9,58,720/- Rounded off Rs.9,59,000 Compensation awarded by Tribunal (-)Rs.9,19,000/-Enhanced compensationRs.40,000/-
Arguments
238-17-FA.odt {2}2.Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance companywould submit that respondent original claimant, Bhanudas(present respondent no.1), filed an accident claim petition underSection 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, contending that he wasproceeding on a motorcycle bearing registration No. MH-14-H-804 towards village Ane after meeting his daughter. Themotorcycle was driven by him and his brother Kashinath was thepillion rider. When their motorcycle was in the vicinity of villageKanhur, a motorcycle bearing No. MH-16-AP-3040, being drivenby one Sayaj Bhagchand Dharam, came from the oppositedirection at an excessively high speed and gave dash to themotorcycle, in which respondent No.1/claimant and his brotherKashinath suffered serious injuries.3.The learned counsel pointed out that, it was alleged thatthe accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligentdriving of the rider of the motorcycle bearing No. MH-16-AP-3040. However, according to him, there was no evidence tosuggest that the rider of the said motorcycle was solelyresponsible or was riding the motorcycle in a rash and negligentmanner. The learned counsel fairly submitted that, the presentappeal is confined to the claim awarded by the Tribunal, even 238-17-FA.odt {3}though the medical bills were not proved by cross-examiningany witness. Therefore, he questions the finding andcompensation awarded by the Tribunal.4.Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent no.1opposed the above submission and, moreover, has set up a claimfor enhancement, as respondent no.1/original claimant hasallegedly not received just compensation. Learned counselwould submit that, the Tribunal has not granted justcompensation. That, it ought to have been appreciated thatrespondent no.1/original claimant is retired teacher and wasgetting pension of Rs.12,000 to Rs.13,000 per month. Apartfrom that, he was also conducting agricultural activities andearning income from the same. Due to the disability suffered inthe accident, his participation in conducting agriculturalactivities has been affected. Learned counsel enumerated thenumber and nature of injuries suffered by his client and wouldpoint out that, huge amount would be required for treatment inseveral hospitals, including Jahangir Hospital at Pune. That,doctor had derived 40% disability. Because of the accidentalpermanent disability, there is loss of future income and noamount has been awarded under the head of “future prospects’, 238-17-FA.odt {4}and therefore, he placed on record calculation pursis seekingenhanced compensation to the tune of RS.22,98,720/-alongwith interest @ 9% p.a.5.Heard both the sides. Perused the record as well asimpugned judgment and award.6.After considering the submissions advanced by the learnedcounsel for the insurance company and on perusal of theimpugned judgment, particularly paragraph no.17, thereappears to be a discussion regarding the claim set up by theclaimant towards medical bills at Exhibit 23.7.While allowing the claim, the Tribunal seems to havegranted total compensation to the tune of Rs.9,19,000/- bytaking into account the medical bills including expenses to thetune of Rs. 7,50,720/- with regard to Jahangir Hospital, whererespondent no.1 was treated for considerable period.8.Claimant also set up his claim for suffering 40% disability.However, Exhibit 29, as pointed out by learned counsel for theinsurance company, is issued by the doctor, who has not treatedrespondent no.1/claimant as it is apparently issued by one Dr.Kamlakar, and he too had already admitted that, fracture injures 238-17-FA.odt {5}have healed-up. Even respondent no.1/claimant, before theTribunal, seems to have admitted that he came to the Court byState Transport bus and was not required to use any aid to reachthe Court. Such aspects, as dealt with by the Tribunal inparagraph 16, do go to show that the nature of the disabilitysuffered by respondent no.1/claimant does not amount tofunctional disability. Moreover, he is a pensioner, and therefore,the question of loss of future income, as claimed by him, doesnot arise. As regards the agricultural income, it was previouslygot done, and there is nothing on record to demonstrate thatrespondent no.1/claimant himself conducted agriculturalactivities, and due to so-called accidental disability, he has beenfurther incapacitated from conducting agricultural activities forearning income source. Therefore, the Tribunal has committedno error whatsoever in refusing to grant amount distinctly underthe head of “loss of future income”. Even the location of injuriesallegedly suffered is below the knee and are not serious orgrievous, and the doctor who issued the disability certificate hasadmitted that the fracture injuries were healed up. On the pointsof disability, future prospects and different heads, learnedcounsel for respondent no.1/claimant has placed reliance onPappu dev Yadav v. Naresh Kumar and others AIR 2020 SC 238-17-FA.odt {6}4424, Lalan v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. AIR 2020 SC 4508,Erudhaya Priya v. State Express Transport Corporation Ltd. AIR2020 SC 4284, K.S. Murlidhar v. R. Subbulakshmi and anotherAIR 2025 SC 70, Kajal v. Jagdish Chand and others (2020) 4SCC 413, Deepak Sing alias Deepk Chauhan v. Mukesh kumarAIR 2025 SC 1094 and Chandramma v. Manager, RegionalOffice, NCC Ltd. And another (2023) 2 SCC 144. However, factsin those cases are not identical and in most of the cases, thenature of injuries and percentage of disability to the claimantstherein are different. Therefore, the present case cannot beequated with the facts of those cases so as to seek furtherenhancement. 9.However, after noticing the quantum awarded under painand suffering, the Tribunal seems to have awarded Rs.80,000/-.Considering the fact that respondent no.1/claimant is apensioner and taking into account his age, the amount awardedunder the head “pain and suffering” is required to be enhancedfrom Rs.80,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/-. So also, respondentno.1/claimant is entitled for compensation for 40% disabilityand not 30%. The same is required to enhanced fromRs.60,000/- to Rs.80,000/-.
Decision
238-17-FA.odt {8}12. In the result, following order:ORDER(i)First Appeal filed by Insurance Company is herebydismissed with no order as to costs.(ii) Impugned Judgment and award dated 26.09.2016passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,Ahmednagar in M.A.C.P. No. 841 of 2011 is modifiedto the effect that claimant is held entitled forenhanced compensation of Rs.40,000/- along withinterest @ 9% p.a. from the date of claim petition tillits realization.(iii) Insurance Company shall pay the enhancedcompensation along with accrued interest in theTribunal within 12 weeks from the date of uploadingof this judgment.(iv)On deposit of the amount by Insurance Company,appellants/claimants are permitted to withdraw thesame.(v) Rest of the award is maintained.(vi) Claimant to pay Court fees on enhancedcompensation as per rules. ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, JUDGES P Rane