Dismissed

Suresh Pandurang Kamble v. Sachin Vithalrao Moterao and Ors.

Bombay HC13 Jul 2009FA/414/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This dismissal of an appeal upholds a First Appeal court's award of Rs.91,800/- to a driver injured in a tractor accident. The bench, hearing the matter without the record, held the quantum was not illusory and dismissed the appeal, remitting the deposited amount to the Tribunal.

What did the court decide?

The First Appeal was dismissed; no costs; amount deposited remitted to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

Suresh Pandurang Kamble Vs Sachin Vithalrao Moterao and… — Motor Accident Claims | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶3

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

11. FA/414/2009

¶5

 With
 CA/2308/2009
 In
 FA/414/2009

¶6

Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or
Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s
or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders

¶7

 Mr. M.D.Shinde, Adv., for the
 appellant.
 Mr Ajit Kadethankar, Adv., for
 respondent no.1.

¶8

...

¶9

CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE: 13/7/2009

¶10

P.C.:-

¶11

1.Dissatisfied with the award of Rs.
91,800/-, fixing the liability of original
respondent no.1 ( appellant herein), is the subject
of challenge in the First Appeal. The matter is
finally heard at admission stage, without calling
record and proceedings.

¶12

2.The claimant was a driver at a tractor
bearing No.MH-23-B-5194, which was parked in the
yard of the sugar factory on 22nd May, 2007. He
was having rest beneath the trolley attached to the
said tractor. It was at this unfortunate moment,
another tractor, having registration No.MH-24-
D-2546; attached with trolley No.MH-24-E-1833

¶13

¶14

loaded with sugarcane, driven by driver Dayanand,
employed by the appellant, drive the vehicle in
such a fashion that due to the dash, the claimant
was crushed under the vehicle driven by said
Dayanand and he was unconscious, he was removed to
the hospital, has suffered following injuries as
indicated at Exh.36.

¶15

"1. Rt. foot : CLW on right foot, over and below 2nd, 3rd and 4th toe (Rt.).

¶16

2. Rt.ankle Swelling with loss of skin, with bony fusion exposed, movements could not be seen due to pain.

¶17

3. Lt. ankle joint swelling with movements could not be seen due to pain, tenderness."

¶18

3.The claimant canvassed that the accident
culminated into his permanent disablement, for
which Exh.48 issued by Dr.Sandhikar was tendered
and proved. The age of the claimant was 27 years on
the date of the accident having born on 1.7.1980
( Exh.40). The claimant contemplated his monthly
earning to be Rs.5000/- with additional emoluments
( diet charges of Rs.50/-).

¶19

4.The contention that the driver of the
contractor Dayanand was not made a party will by
itself not exonerate the appellant as the liability
is vicarious and cannot be defused. It was
apparently the negligence on the part of the

¶20

¶21

Dayanand leading to the accident where the vehicle
was loaded with sugarcane. The terms of Insurance
Company were breached which made the learned Judge
to exonerate the Insurance Company - this also does
not call for any interference. As per the
calculations arrived at, as indicated in paragraph
no.11 of the judgment, the learned Judge treated
the notional salary as Rs.15,000/- annually,
considering the age, multiplier of 18 was applied
and the disablement was treated to be 20 per cent.
The loss of salary of Rs.12,000/- was also
considered. The hospitalization and diet charges
were taken into account. These details, cannot be
said to be illusory in nature requiring any
interference. Appeal lacks merit. It is
dismissed. No costs.

¶22

5.The amount deposited in this Court to be
remitted to the learned Member, Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Latur. Civil Application
disposed of.

¶23

(K.U.CHANDIWAL)

¶24

agp/fa414-09

Suresh Pandurang Kamble v. Sachin Vithalrao Moterao and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Pandurang Kamble v. Sachin Vithalrao Moterao and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Maha. Vs Haribhau Died Lr.S. Prayagabai and Sothers

Oriental Insurance Company Vs Ashok and Ors.

State of Maha Vs Shrirang Manikrao Marade

Kasare Education So and Anr. Vs Pundalik Sitaram Desale and Ors.

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Prakash Uttamrao Nalge and Ors.

United India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Hari Kalu Bhoi and Ors.