Partly allowed

Anita Arun Memane v. the Msrtc, Anagar Thr Divisional Controller

Bombay HC21 Jan 2013FA/778/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a first appeal appealing against the compensation award under the Motor Vehicles Act, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Aurangabad enhanced the compensation from Rs. 1,00,000 to Rs. 1,70,000 by correcting medical expense calculations and awarding lump sum damages for loss of earning.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 1,70,000 with future interest at 7.5% per annum; amount already paid adjusted.

Anita Arun Memane Vs the Msrtc, Anagar Thr Divisional… — Motor Accident Claims | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

F.A. 778.2012- (J)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

FIRST APPEAL NO. 778 OF 2012

¶5

Anita W/o Arun Memane Age : 24 Yrs., Occ. Household, R/o : Raytale, Tq. Parner, Dist.: Ahmednagar. .... APPELLANT

¶6

V E R S U S

¶7

The Maharashtra State Road

¶8

Transport Corporation Through its Divisional Controller, Sarjepura,

¶9

Ahmednagar.

¶10

.... RESPONDENT

¶11

Mr. A.S. Zarekar, Advocate for the Appellant.

¶12

Mr. M.K.Goyanka, Advocate for the Respondent.

¶13

CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.

¶14

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21/01/2013

¶15

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶16

With the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties, taken up for final hearing.

¶17

2 F.A. 778.2012- (J)

¶18

The present Appeal is filed for enhancement of compensation.

¶19

The appellant had filed Claim Petition U/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act [ For short, ' M.V. Act ' ]. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmednagar [ For short, ' Tribunal ' ] has partly allowed the claim and granted ` 1,00,000/- [ Rupees One Lac only ] as compensation.

¶20

Mr. Zarekar, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Court has not computed medical expenses properly. The total has been wrongly done. The total medical expenses comes to 86,267/- [ Rupees Eighty Six Thousand Two Hundred Sixty Seven only ]. But, the same is wrongly computed by the Tribunal and granted 54,947/- [ Rupees Fifty Four Thousand Nine Hundred Forty Seven only ]. Even the future medical expenses of ` 15,000/- [ Rupees Fifteen Thousand only ] has not been considered. According to the learned counsel, the same is required to be added.

¶21

The appellant was doing labour work. As such, notional income ought to have been considered and multiplier of 17 ought to have been applied. In doing so, the Tribunal has committed error. The learned counsel relies on the following citations to buttress his submissions :

¶22

¶23

F.A. 778.2012- (J)

¶24

[ i ] The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V/s Shweta Dilip Mehta & Ors. reported in 2010 (2) ALL M.R. - 222.

¶25

[ i i] Sanjay Batham V/s Munnalal Parihar Judgment in Civil Appeal No. 9013 of 2011 [ Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 8983 of 2010 ]

¶26

[ iii ] Arun Kumar Agrawal & Anr. V/s National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. reported in AIR 2010 SUPREME COURT - 3426.

¶27

[ iv ] Smt. Santi V/s Daya Ram & Ors. reported in 2012 (4) T.A.C. - 407 (Raj.)

¶28

Mr. Goyanka, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that some of the bills have been submitted twice. According to the learned counsel, the Court has rightly considered the said aspect. There is no proof of the fact that the appellant was doing labour work. Even in the title clause, the appellant claimed to be house wife. According to the learned counsel, no error is committed by the Tribunal while passing the Award.

¶29

With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the Judgment and Award, so also the proceedings.

¶30

4 F.A. 778.2012- (J)

¶31

The factual matrix about the accident is not disputed. The only

¶32

dispute is regarding the compensation awarded.

¶33

The medical bills vide Exh. 20, 25 and 26 are proved. Some of the bills vide list Exh. 20 are produced twice. The amount towards the same will have to be deducted. The total of the medical expenses vide Exh. 20, 25 and 26 comes to 86,267/- [ Rupees Eighty Six Thousand Two Hundred Sixty Seven only ]. The amount of 14,000/- [ Rupees Fourteen Thousand only ] is in respect of the bills, which are submitted twice. The same will have to be deducted. As such, towards the medical expenses, the appellant would be entitled to 72,267/- [ Rupees Seventy Two Thousand Two Hundred Sixty Seven only ]. The Doctor has opined that 10,000/[ Rupees Ten Thousand only ] to ` 15,000/- [ Rupees Fifteen Thousand only ] can be required for further operation.

¶34

In light of the above, towards the medical expenses, the appellant would be entitled to 87,267/- [ Rupees Eighty Seven Thousand Two Hundred Sixty Seven only ] and not 54,947/- [ Rupees Fifty Four Thousand Nine Hundred Forty Seven only ] as stated by the Tribunal. In fact, the Tribunal has committed mathematical error in calculating the said amount.

¶35

5 F.A. 778.2012- (J)

¶36

The Tribunal has awarded the amount of ` 30,000/- [ Rupees Thirty Thousand only ] towards lump sum damages on account of injury, so also other heads.

¶37

It appears that the appellant had sustained fracture of segmental rigits, radius and ulna with wrist subluxation and the bone was fractured at five (5) places. Considering all these facts, the lump sum compensation of 30,000/- [ Rupees Thirty Thousand only ] awarded would be on the lower side. Even if multiplier method is adopted, the appellant would be entitled for the amount of 76,000/- [ Rupees Seventy Six Thousand only ].

¶38

Taking into consideration the aforesaid aspect of the matter, I would award compensation of 76,000/- [ Rupees Seventy Six Thousand only ] towards the loss of earning and damages and an amount of 7,000/- [ Rupees Seven Thousand only ] towards pains and sufferings. As such, the appellant would be entitled for the total amount of compensation of ` 1,70,000/- [ Rupees One Lac Seventy Thousand only ].

¶39

In light of the above, I pass the following order :

¶40

The present First Appeal is partly allowed. The appellant is entitled for total compensation of ` 1,70,000/- [ Rupees One Lac Seventy

¶41

6 F.A. 778.2012- (J)

¶42

Thousand only ] in stead of ` 1,00,000/- [ Rupees One Lac only ] as awarded by the Tribunal.

¶43

The respondent shall pay total compensation of ` 1,70,000/[ Rupees One Lac Seventy Thousand only ] to the appellant with future interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of petition till realization.

¶44

The amount already paid shall be adjusted.

¶45

The present First Appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

¶46

[ S.V. GANGAPURWALA ]

¶47

JUDGE

¶48

KNP/F.A. 778.2012- (J)

Anita Arun Memane v. the Msrtc, Anagar Thr Divisional Controller

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anita Arun Memane v. the Msrtc, Anagar Thr Divisional Controller

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

Icici General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Subhan Mohammad Pathan and Anr.

The State of Maharashtra Tho.Executive Engineer. Vs Santosh Gorakh Patil and Anr.

Shaikh Naim Shaikh Karim Vs the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Thr Sr.Divisional Manager and Ors.

Purbhaji Ramrao Adkine Vs Dajiba @ Dajisaheb Amrata Adkine

Sayyed Ismail Sayyed Peer Mohammad Vs Jeelani Begum Gulam Jeelani Kadari

Godawari Marathwada Irrigation Devp. Corp Ltd. Vs Sunad Jagannath Suryawanshi and Anr.