Appeal against Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. Court increased compensation based on 60% disablement and admitted evidence for medical and conveyance costs, remitting total award to Rs. 6,63,469.
Modified the Tribunal award to Rs. 6,63,469 inclusive of no-fault liability with interest at 8% p.a.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
fa726.16
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 726 OF 2016
AJIT KISAN BHANGRE VERSUS
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, M.S.R.T.C., SARJEPURA
Advocate for Appellant : Mr. K.N. Shermale Advocate for Respondents : Mr. M.K. Goyanka
CORAM : V. K. JADHAV, J. DATED : 27th MARCH, 2017
PER COURT :-
3. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows:-
a) On 14.1.2009, at about 3.00 p.m. the appellant claimant was coming from Ahmednagar in a S.T. Bus to Sangamner. On way, the said Bus met with an accident. The accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of driver of S.T. Bus. In consequence of which, the appellant claimant has sustained serious
fa726.16
-2-
injuries, which resulted in amputation of his left leg below knee. The appellant has thus, claimed compensation under various heads by filing M.A.C.P. No. 156 of 2009.
b) The learned Member of the Tribunal by its impugned judgment and award, after considering the evidence on record awarded the compensation of Rs.2,60,600/- inclusive of 'no fault liability' amount. Hence, this appeal.
fa726.16
-3-
counsel submits that left leg of the appellant-claimant came to be amputated below knee level and no separate evidence is required to be given for medical treatment in future including purchase of artificial leg etc.
Learned counsel for the appellant, in order to substantiate his submissions, placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in the
fa726.16
-4-
case of Govind Yadav vs. New India Insurance Company Limited, reported in (2011) 10 SCC 683, wherein the Supreme court has considered 70% permanent disablement as certified by the Orthopedician and accordingly awarded compensation under the head of loss of future income by taking into account the notional income of the claimant/injured in that case at Rs.3000/- p.m. In the above cited case, the Supreme Court has also awarded substantial amount under pains and suffering and for future medical treatment.
fa726.16
-5-
fa726.16
-6-
evidence that the appellant claimant remained hospitalized for near about 5 to 6 months and his left leg below knee came to be amputated. The appellant claimant is thus entitled for Rs.1,00,000/- as against Rs.10,000/- towards pains and sufferings and Rs.20,000/- for special diet as against Rs.5000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. So far as the conveyance charges are concerned, the appellant-claimant has examined witness No.3 Sitaram Deshmukh, who used to give his vehicle on hire basis to the appellant-claimant for taking him to the hospitals at Ahmednagar from Sangamner. He has charged Rs.3,500/on every such visit and also issued receipts to that effect, which are marked Exh.38 to 48. Those receipts bear his signature on revenue stamp. In view of the same, the claimant is entitled for amount of Rs.36,500/- towards conveyance charges as against the Rs.10,000/awarded by the Tribunal. So far as the future medical treatment is concerned, the appellant claimant has not deposed about probable medical expenses in future, however, considering the amputation of left leg below knee level, the expenses towards artificial leg etc. would be required. Thus, the claimant is entitled for amount of Rs.50,000/towards future medical expenses. The claimant is also entitled for Rs.20,000/- towards the attendance charges as against Rs.2,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal.
-7-
fa726.16
| i) | Loss of future earning capacity (as against Rs.1,83,600/- awarded by the Tribunal) |
Rs. | 3,67,200.00 |
|---|---|---|---|
| ii) | Medical expenses (as against Rs.50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal) |
Rs. | 69,769.00 |
| iii) | Pains and sufferings (as against Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal) |
Rs. | 1,00,000.00 |
| iv) | Special diet (as against Rs.5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal) |
Rs. | 20,000.00 |
| v) | Transportation (as against Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal) |
Rs. | 36,500.00 |
| vi) | Artificial leg etc. and for future medical treatment (The tribunal has not awarded any amount under this head) |
Rs. | 50,000.00 |
| vii) | Attendance charges (as against Rs.2,000/- awarded by the Tribunal) |
Rs. ----- |
20,000.00 ------------------ |
| Total Rs. === |
6,63,469.00 ========== |
Thus, the claimant is entitled for Rupees six lacs sixty three
thousand four hundred sixty nine. The judgment and award is required to be modified. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order:-
O R D E R
II. The judgment and award dated 27.10.2015 passed by the
fa726.16
-8-
M.A.C.T. Sangamner in M.A.C.P. No. 156 of 2009 is hereby modified in the following manner:-
“The appellant-claimant is entitled for amount of Rs.6,63,469.00 (Rupees Six lacs sixty three thousand four hundred sixty nine only) inclusive of 'no fault liability' amount from the respondent and the respondent do pay the same inclusive of 'no fault liability' with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of claim petition i.e. 16.9.2009 till its realization, excluding the period from May, 2013 till 29.01.2015.”
( V. K. JADHAV, J.)
rlj/
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal erred in calculating permanent disablement at 30% instead of 60% for amputation below knee.
Whether the Tribunal erred in awarding reduced compensation for future medical treatment, medical expenses, and conveyance.
What is the correct quantum of compensation payable to the claimant including future loss of income.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Govind Yadav vs. New India Insurance Company LimitedRelied on¶23
(2011) 10 SCC 683, Govind Yadav vs. New India Insurance Company Limited · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ajit Kisan Bhangre
The Divisional Controller, M.S.R.T.C., Sarjepura
V. K. Jadhav
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
