Allowed

Vanita Dadasaheb Aware v. Yunus Khan S/O Usman Khan Pathan and Ors.

Bombay HC27 Sept 2022FA/1511/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a First Appeal arising from a motor accident, the Appellant sought enhancement of compensation. While upholding the Tribunal's finding regarding disability percentage due to lack of medical proof, the Judge enhanced compensation by awarding Rs. 15,000 for pain and sufferings and diet.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs. 15,000 awarded for pain and sufferings and diet, payable at 6% per annum from the date of application.

Vanita Dadasaheb Aware Vs Yunus Khan S/O Usman Khan… — Motor Accident Claims | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

990- F.A. No. 1511-2022.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

990 FIRST APPEAL NO.1511 OF 2022

¶5

VANITA DADASAHEB AWARE VERSUS

¶6

YUNUS KHAN S/O USMAN KHAN PATHAN AND ORS

¶7

Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Shinde Ram S. Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 : Swapnil M. Mule h/f Mr. R. V. Gore

¶8

Advocate for respondent No.3 : Mr. M. R. Deshmukh

¶9

CORAM : S. G. DIGE, J. DATE : 27.09.2022

¶10

ORAL ORDER :-

¶11

This appeal is fled for enhancement of compensation by the appellant/original claimant.

¶12

Brief facts of the case are as under :-

¶13

On 17^th June, 2017 at about 11.30 a.m the appellant/ claimant was the pillion rider on motorcycle bearing registration No. MH-20-BZ- 9931 which was driven by her husband Babasaheb. When they reached near Ajeet Seeds Company, one Tipper bearing registration No. MH-20/BT-777 came from opposite side and gave dash to the motorcycle on which the appellant was pillion rider. The crime was registered against the driver of the Tipper. The Tribunal has awarded the compensation of Rs.

¶14

¶15

990- F.A. No. 1511-2022.odt

¶16

50,000/-. Against said judgment and order, this appeal for enhancement.

¶17

It is the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that, in the said accident, appellant sufered permanent disability, and due to that permanent disability appellant is not able to do her regular job. But this fact is not considered by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has granted lumpsum compensation amount and ignored that appellant has spent more than Rs. 50,000/- towards hospital bills. The Tribunal has not considered the evidence given by the doctor in respect of the disability sufered by the appellant. Hence reuuested to allow the appeal.

¶18

It is the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that THE appellant had sufered head injury and chest injury with CLW occipital region. She was treated conservatively. There was no operation performed on the appellant nor she sufered any functional disability. Hence compensation awarded by the Tribunal is proper.

¶19

I have heard both the learned counsel. Perused judgment and order passed by the Tribunal. To prove disability of appellant P.W.2 Dr. Parmeshwar Jaiswal, vide (Exh.30) has stated that, the appellant /claimant had sufered permanent

¶20

3 990- F.A. No. 1511-2022.odt

¶21

disability to the extent of 15% by Mc-Bride scale. He treated the appellant conservatively. He, on the basis of her old medical treatment papers examined her clinically and issued disability certifcate. In cross examination, this witness has admitted that, appellant disclosed him about headache. Hence, he mentioned that there was headache to the appellant. It has come in the evidence of appellant (P.W.1) that, after the accident, she and her husband sustained various serious injuries and were shifted to Asian City Care Superfciality Hospital, Osmanpura, Aurangabad for medical treatment. From the evidence of doctor, it is not appearing that appellant was sufering 15% disability. Though appellant is stating that she is sufering from headache and chest pain, but no medical papers are produced on record to prove this fact. Hence, I do not fnd any infrmity in observation of Tribunal about disability of the appellant. The Tribunal has awarded lum sump amount of Rs. 50,000/-. No amount is given for pain and suferings. The appellant is entitled for Rs. 10,000/- towards for pain and suferings and Rs. 5,000/- for diet. In view of above, I pass the following order.

¶22

ORDER

¶23

(I) Appeal is allowed.

¶24

(ii) The Appellant is entitled enhanced amount of Rs.

¶25

¶26

990- F.A. No. 1511-2022.odt

¶27

15,000/- at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of fling of fling application till its realization

¶28

(iii) Respondents shall deposit enhanced amount before this Court within four weeks. Appellant is permitted to withdraw deposited amount.

¶29

(iv) The appeal is disposed of.

¶30

( S.G. DIGE,) JUDGE

Vanita Dadasaheb Aware v. Yunus Khan S/O Usman Khan Pathan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vanita Dadasaheb Aware v. Yunus Khan S/O Usman Khan Pathan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mangal Gangadhar Dongre and Anr. Vs Tukaram Babanrao Mate and Ors.

Prayagbai Vinayak Narwade and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

The State of Maharashtra Thr the Collector, Osmanabad and Ors. Vs Prabhakar Keshav Jadhav

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Nilesh Vijaykumar Godha and Ors.

The Ex. Engineer, Beed Irrigation Div. Beed and Ors. Vs Kashinath S/O Mahadeo Karpe (Died) Lrs Dnyaneshwar and Anr.

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Govind Uday Datir and Another