Allowed

Vijay Baban Kulal v. the Manager Auto Create Services Pvt. Ltd. Panvel and Anr.

Bombay HC5 Dec 2012FA/2598/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court enhanced the compensation for permanent disability in two appeals arising from motor vehicle accidents. Finding future loss of income unproven and the original award low, the court granted an additional Rs.20,000 per petitioner with interest.

What did the court decide?

The compensation for permanent disability was enhanced by Rs.20,000 in each appeal, to be paid with interest of 6% p.a. from the date of petition.

Vijay Baban Kulal Vs the Manager Auto Create Services… — Motor Accident Claims | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT

¶3

BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶5

FIRST APPEAL NO.2598 OF 2011.

¶6

Vijay S/o Baban Kulal,
Age 39 years, Occ.Service,
R/o Kushaba Near, Pipeline Road,
Savedi, Ahmednagar.

¶7

... Appellant.

¶8

Versus

¶9

1. The Manager,
Auto Create Services Pvt.Ltd.,
Old Pune, Mumbai High Way,
Near Raigad Resort, Balaji
Petrol Pump, Raigad,
Panvel 410 206.

¶10

2. The New India Assurance Co.
Ltd., Near Ashoka Hotel,
Zendigate, A'nagar,
Dist.Ahmednagar. ... Respondents.

¶11

WITH

¶12

FIRST APPEAL NO.2599 OF 2011.

¶13

Sambhaji S/o Anandrao Pandhare,
Age 32 years, Occ.Path Lab.,
R/o Atharwa Row Housing
Bhistabag Naka,Savedi,
Ahmednagar. ... Appellant.

¶14

Versus

¶15

¶16

1. The Manager,
Auto Create Services Pvt.Ltd.,
Old Pune Mumbai High Way,
Near Raigad Resort, Balaji Petrol
Pump Raigad, Panvel 410 206.

¶17

2. The New India Assurance Co.
Ltd., Near Ashoka Hotel,
Zendigate, A'nagar, Dist.
Ahmednagar. ... Respondents.

¶18

Mr.D.R.Jayabhar, advocate for the appellants.
Mr.A.G.Kanade, advocate for the Respondent No.2.
Mr.M.S.Pallod, advocate for Respondent No.1.

¶19

CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.

¶20

 Date : 05.12.2012.

¶21

ORAL ORDER :

¶22

1. Heard.

¶23

2.The appellants in both these appeals
had filed Petition U/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, for compensation on account of the injury
sustained by them in the accident. The Tribunal
partly allowed the claim petition. Apart from
the medical expenses, it awarded compensation of
Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand)towards
disability sustained by them. The claimants have
filedappealsforenhancementofthe
compensation.

¶24

¶25

3.Mr.Jayabhar, learned counsel for the
appellants submits that the appellants have
suffered loss of earning capacity. The
disability to the extent of 20% has been brought
on record. The doctors have also been examined.
They have also proved the disability. The
appellant in F.A.No.2598/2011, is not in a
position to lift any heavy object and the
appellant in F.A.No.2599/2011 has to lose his job
as technician, where he was earning Rs.400/- to
Rs.500/- per day and now he is running a tea
stall and earning Rs.150/- per day. All these
aspects have not been considered by the Tribunal.
According to the learned counsel even the total
medical expenses have not been awarded. The
amount towards conveyance, attendants and special
diet has been awarded less.

¶26

4.Mr.Kanade, learned counsel for the
Insurance Company supports the award and states
that the Tribunal has rightly considered all the
aspects. The doctor has specifically stated that
the bone has been properly united and the
appellants can do their regular work. There is

¶27

¶28

no loss of earning. The salary of the appellant
in F.A.No.2598/2011 is increased to Rs.13,000/-
(Rupees thirteen thousand) after the accident,
whereas the appellant in F.A.No.2599/2011 has
also admitted in cross-examination that he is
still working as a technician. This would show
that there was no loss of earning and in fact, it
is not a case of permanent disability.

¶29

5.With the assistance of the learned
counsel, I have gone through the judgment and
record and proceedings. The Tribunal has awarded
the total medical expenses of which the bills
were produced. In addition to the same, the
Tribunal has also awarded Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten
thousand) each towards conveyance, attendants and
special diet. I do not see any error committed
by the Tribunal in that regard.

¶30

6.As far as the amount of compensation
towards disability sustained is concerned, the
Doctor has opined that the appellants have
sustained 20% disability. The Court has
considered that future loss of income has not

¶31

¶32

been proved. The Tribunal has not considered the
multiplier method for awarding the compensation
and lumpsum compensation of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees
twenty thousand) each is awarded.

¶33

7.The disability of 20% is on record.

¶34

Taking into account the evidence on record, the
future loss of income has not been proved. In
such a case, awarding lumpsum compensation would
be appropriate. Awarding Rs.20,000/- (Rupees
twenty thousand) on the said count would be on
lower side.

¶35

8.In light of the above, I award Rs.
40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) for the

¶36

permanent disability sustained i.e. the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced
by Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) in each
appeal. The Respondents shall jointly and
severally pay the additional compensation of Rs.

¶37

20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) i.e. in
addition to the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal to the claimants. The said additional
compensation of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty

¶38

¶39

thousand) shall carry interest of 6% p.a. as
awarded by the Tribunal from the date of petition
till realisation.

¶40

9.The First Appeals are accordingly
disposed of. However, there shall be no order as

¶41

to costs.

¶42

 (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.)

¶43

asp/office/Fa259811

Vijay Baban Kulal v. the Manager Auto Create Services Pvt. Ltd. Panvel and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Baban Kulal v. the Manager Auto Create Services Pvt. Ltd. Panvel and Anr.

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

Bharat Engineering Works Ahmednagar through Proprietor Vs Vaijanta Balasaheb Warangale

Bharat Engineering Works Ahmednagar through Proprietor Vs Vaijanta Balasaheb Warangale

Manish Ramdas Patil and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Bhagirthibai Gabaji Nawale, Died Thr. L.Rs. Shrikant Bhagwat Nawale and Anr. Vs Karikishan Radhakisan Jaju, Died Thr. L.Rs. Sangeeta and Anr.

Naryan Tatya Pawar Vs Anada Kishan Shinde and Anr.

Anilkumr S/O. Gangadharrao Bhojraj Patil Vs Dr. Pandurang S/O. Ambadasrao Ratnalikar