Rajkumar Pandhari Ingle v. Ashwin Arvind Jaiswal & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYNAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPURFIRST APPEAL NO.711 OF 2023 Rajkumar Pandhari IngleAged about 47 years, Occ: Nil,R/o Plot No.13, Adiwasi Society No.1,Manish Nagar, Somalwada, Nagpur. ...APPELLANT(On RA)...V E R S U S...1.Ashwin Arvind JaiswalAged Major, Occ-OwnerR/o Fat No.1, Ashirwad Palace, Abhyankar Road, Dhantoli, Nagpur.2.The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Paul Commercial Complex, Ajni Chowk, Wardha Road, Nagpur. ...RESPONDENTS(On RA)-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Shri Madhur Deo, Advocate for appellant. Shri Rohit Vaidya, Advocate for respondent no.1.Shri C.A. Anthony, Advocate for respondent no.2.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------CORAM:- M.W. CHANDWANI, J. DATED :- 10.09.2025ORAL JUDGMENT:1.This appeal preferred under Section 173 of the MotorVehicles Act, 1988 challenges the quantum of compensationgranted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur(hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal” for short) in M.A.C.P.No.832/2016 under various heads on account of a vehicular 2fa711.23.odtaccident which occurred on 03.05.2016. The brief facts of the case are as under: 2.On 03.05.2016, at about 2.30 hours, the appellantsuffered grievous injury in the accident with the offending vehicleof respondent no.1 which was insured at the relevant time withrespondent no.2. Pursuant to the grievous injury, the appellantsustained permanent injury to the lower limbs and as a result ofthat, now he cannot move without the assistance. The appellantfiled a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act forgrant of compensation on account of the injury. The Tribunalpartly allowed the claim and granted a compensation of1,08,25,732/- under various heads namely, 96,88,182 towards₹₹future pecuniary loss, 38,285/- towards medicine, 3,09,400/-₹₹for physiotherapy, 2,22,000/- towards bathing, clothing and₹massage, 32,865/- for medicine purchased from Med Plus,₹1,44,000/- towards feeding and sponging, 66,000/- towards the₹₹customized wheel chair, 1,50,000/- for pain and suffering,₹1,00,000/- for loss of amenities, 50,000/- towards special diet₹₹and 25,000/- towards future medicine expenses.₹3.This appeal has been filed on various grounds 3fa711.23.odtamongst others such as non application of proper multiplier by theTribunal. Even while assessing the income and future prospects, compensation of only 1,50,000/- has been granted towards pain₹and suffering, future attendant charges have not been granted andeven future medical expenses are also not considered. 4.Learned counsel for the appellant Shri Madhur Deovehemently submitted that, though the learned Tribunal hasgranted 200/- for attendant expenses till the date of filing of the₹petition but no expenses towards future attendant have beengranted by the learned Tribunal. According to him, the appellantwill require one attendant. Therefore, attendant charges are to begranted by applying a multiplier as in the case of Kajal Vs. JagdishChand and others 1 wherein, the Supreme Court has grantedfuture attendant charges by applying a multiplier system whichwas latter followed in the case of Baby Sakshi Greola Vs. ManzoorAhmad Simon and another 2. 5.It is also contended that the compensation towardspain and suffering is on the lower side. One of the maincontentions of the learned counsel for the appellant is that thedate of birth of the appellant is 25.09.1975 and on the date of1(2020) 4 SCC 41322024 INSC 963 4fa711.23.odtaccident, he had not completed 41 years of age but the learnedTribunal instead of applying multiplier of 15, has applied themultiplier of 14. 6. Conversely, learned counsel for respondent no.2 ShriC.A. Anthony submitted that the learned Tribunal has consideredall these aspects and granted just compensation. According to him, even future medical expenses are granted apart from pain andsuffering. Therefore, he supported the judgment of the learnedTribunal and sought rejection of the appeal. 7.Having heard the respective counsels and havinggone through the record, it transpires from the Income Tax Returnthat the date of birth of the appellant is 25.09.1975. Indisputably, the accident occurred on 03.05.2016. Thus, by calculation, on thedate of accident though the appellant had crossed the age of 40years but had not not completed 41 years. A reference can bemade to the decision in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd.Vs. Alpa Rajesh Shah and others 1, wherein the Division Bench ofthis Court by relying on the decision of Sarla Verma vs. DelhiTransport Corporation 2 has observed as under:“16. The other issue is regarding the multiplier to be12014(2) MhLJ 172(2009) 6 SCC 121 5fa711.23.odtapplied in terms of the decision of the Apex Court in thecase of Sarla Verma (supra). The date of birth of thedeceased was 29th June 1968. So on the date of accident, his age was about 30 years and 8 months. The Apex Courtin paragraph 42 of its decision in the case of Sarla Verma(supra) has held that the multiplier of 17 shall be appliedfor the age group of 26 to 30 years and multiplier of 16shall be applied for the age group of 31 to 35 years. Thesubmission of the learned counsel for the appellant is thatthe deceased was falling in the age group of 31 to 35years. However, the deceased had not completed age of31 years. On this aspect, it will be necessary to make areference to the decision of this Court in the case ofNational Insurance Company Limited vs. Vaishali HarishDevare and others5. This was a case where the age of thedeceased was more than 40 years but less than 41 years. The issue was whether the deceased will fall in the agegroup of 36 to 40 years or the age group of 41 to 45 yearsin terms of the decision of the Apex Court in the case ofSarla Verma. Relying upon the decision of the Apex Courtin the case of Sarla Verma (supra), in paragraph 26 thisCourt held thus: "26....The completed age of the deceased at thetime of death was 40 years. In terms 5 First AppealNo.1068 of 2012 decided on 31st August 2012 12fa848 final draft of the decision of the Apex Courtin case of Sarla Verma and others (supra), for theage group of 36 to 40 multiplier of 15 has beenspecified. For the age group of 41 to 45, multiplierof 14 has been specified. Therefore, by applyingmultiplier of 15, the total 1000 of dependency willbe Rs.49,95,000/-...” 8.In view of the above and the fact that the appellanthad not completed 41 years of age, the Tribunal wrongly appliedthe multiplier of 14 instead of 15 while calculating loss of incomeand future prospects, which is required to be corrected here. 9.This takes me to the submission regarding nongranting of future attendant charges. It is a matter of record that 6fa711.23.odtthe Tribunal has granted attendant charges at the rate of 6,000/-₹which the appellant has spent till the filing of the claim petition, but the future attendant charges have not been awarded. Thoughthe appellant is mentally fit, considering 100 per cent disability tolower limbs of the appellant, he requires one attendant on same ofthe occasions during course of a day therefore, the Tribunal oughtto have granted the future attendant charges. Though, theappellant has 100 per cent disability to his lower limbs, but factremains that his upper limbs are working. Considering theseaspects, the attendant charges granted by the Tribunal at the rateof 200/- per day be also extended towards future attendant₹charges to the appellant. As held in the case of Kajal (supra), theattendant charges are to be granted by applying the multiplierfactor. These aspects have not been considered by the Tribunal andtherefore, the appellant is entitled for future attendant charges atthe rate of 6,000/- per month X 12 (months) x 15 (multiplier). ₹10.So far as pain and suffering charges are concerned, the Tribunal has granted 1,50,000/-. Considering the fact that₹the applicant has been declared as 100 per cent disabled withregard to both his lower limbs, meaning thereby that he is unableto stand on his own and the fact that it will be difficult for him to 7fa711.23.odteven pursue his daily routine including nature’s call; in my view, the Tribunal ought to have granted 2 lakhs towards pain and₹suffering. 11.In the decision of the Supreme Court in the case ofSidaram Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance CompanyLimited and another1 relied upon by the learned counsel forrespondent no.2, a 19 year old boy was granted compensation of1 lakh towards pain and suffering. In that case, permanent₹disability suffered by the injured was to the extent of 45 per cent; whereas, in the present case, 100 per cent disability has beensustained by the appellant due to the injury. Therefore, this casewill not be helpful to respondent no.2.12.The Tribunal has granted the expenses for customizedwheel chair to the extent of 66,000/-. Considering the age of the₹appellant and durability / sustainability of the wheel-chair, theTribunal ought to have granted compensation for two customizedwheel chairs. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to the amount ofone additional customized wheel chair. 13.Though, there is no material produced before theTribunal to show future medical expenses, considering the injuries12022 DGLS (SC) 1509 8fa711.23.odtand the nature of disability, it is obvious that there may be futuremedical complications. The Tribunal has awarded a meageramount of 25,000/- towards future medical expenses which is₹required to be enhanced to 2 lakhs. ₹14.In wake of this, the appellant is entitled to thefollowing compensation :Sr.No.Compensation HeadAmount1.Average income ₹553611 + ₹1,38,402/-(25% towards future prospects)₹6,92,013/-Pecuniary loss Multiplier of 15 as per the judgment ofSarla Verma vs. Delhi TransportCorporation – (2009) 6 SCC 12.(₹6,92,013X 15)₹1,03,80,195/-2.Medicine₹38,285/-3.Physiotherapy ₹3,09,400/-4.Bathing, clothing and massage₹2,22,000/-5.Medicines purchased from MedPlus₹32,865/-6.Feeding and sponging₹1,44,000/-7.Customized wheel chairs (for 2 chairs₹66,000/- each)₹1,32,000/-8.Pain and suffering ₹2,00,000/-9.Loss of amenities ₹1,00,000/-10.Special diet₹50,000/-11.Future medicine expenses₹2,00,000/-12.Attendant charges (₹6,000 X 12 X 15)₹10,08,000/-Total compensation amount (including enhanced) LESS: Compensation granted by Tribunal Enhanced amount of compensation₹1,28,16,745/-₹1,08,25,732/-₹19,91,013/- - 9fa711.23.odt15.In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed. The award to the extent of the enhanced compensation ismodified as under :The appellant is entitled to the enhanced compensation of19,91,013/- and interest thereon @6.5% per annum from the₹date of petition till its realization in addition to what has alreadybeen awarded. However, the appellant shall not be entitled forinterest for the delayed period. 16.Respondent no.3 to deposit the enhancedcompensation amount in this Court within a period of eight weeksfrom today.17.With this, the appeal stands disposed of. Pendingapplication(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.18.Award be drawn accordingly. JUDGEWagh