Allowed

Dinkar Rajaram Patil v. Commissioner, Kolhapur Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Bombay HC11 Dec 2023FA/361/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the first appeal against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award. It held that the accident was solely due to the respondent's driver's negligence. The Court awarded enhanced compensation of Rs. 5,10,400, including future prospects and heads like loss of amenities and medical expenses, along with interest and deposit directions.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 5,10,400 with interest at 9% p.a.; amount deposited by Insurance Company.

Dinkar Rajaram Patil Vs Commissioner, Kolhapur… — Motor Accident Claims | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

2_fa_361_2002.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

FIRST APPEAL NO.361 OF 2002

¶4

Dinkar Rajaram Patil
r.o Himmat Bahaddur Area,
...Appellant
Tarabai Park, Kolhapur

¶5

Versus

¶6

1. Commissioner, Kolhapur
Municipal Corporation,
Kolhapur.

¶7

2. Director of Insurance,
Maharashtra State,
 New Adm. Building, 16th and
17th floor, Bomba-32.

¶8

3. Anil Laxman Otari
 R/o. 2069, 12th Lane,...Respondents
 Rajarampuri, Kolhapur.

¶9

Mr. Jayant Bardeskar for the Appellant.
Ms Tanaya Goswami, AGP for Respondent No.2.

¶10

 CORAM: SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.

¶11

 DATE : 11th DECEMBER, 2023.

¶12

ORAL JUDGMENT:-

¶13

1.By this appeal the Appellant is seeking enhancement of
compensation.

¶14

2. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the

¶15

Digitally signed by MEGHA MEGHA SHREEDHAR SHREEDHAR PARAB PARAB Date: 2023.12.19 11:03:47 +0530

¶16

Appellant that while calculating the compensation, the Tribunal has

Megha

1/6

2_fa_361_2002.doc

not considered monthly income of the Claimant and has awarded
Rs.99,000/-as compensation, which is not proper. The Tribunal has
considered 30% contributory negligence of the claimant without any
evidence. The offence was registered against the driver of the
offending bus. Learned counsel further submitted that in the said
accident the Claimant has suffered 50% disability, certificate of
disability is at Exhibit-40. The Tribunal has not awarded
compensation under other heads i.e. for special diet, conveyance,
loss of amenities, etc. Hence, requested to allow the appeal.

¶21

3.It is the contention of the learned counsel for the
Respondent-Corporation that while awarding the compensation, the
Tribunal has considered all the aspects. On that basis the Tribunal
has awarded the compensation. The Claimant has not proved his
monthly income before the Tribunal. No evidence was laid in that
regard. Learned counsel further submitted that the judgment and
order passed by the Tribunal is legal, valid and no interference is
required in it.

¶22

4.I have heard both the learned counsel. Perused the

¶23

judgment and order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

Megha

2/6

2_fa_361_2002.doc

Kolhapur (for short ‘the Tribunal’).

¶28

5.It is the Claimant’s case that on 01/10/1991 at about
8.00 to 8.15 p.m. while the Claimant was proceeding on a
motorcycle from his shop towards Uma Talkies, a bus bearing
registration No.MH 09/A-7226 came from opposite direction and
gave dash to the motorcycle of the Claimant. Due to the said dash
the Claimant had suffered injuries to his shoulder bones and other
parts of body. The Claimant was admitted in the hospital. Doctor
has given certificate of 50% disability. To prove the income, the
Claimant has examined himself at Exhibit-35. He has stated that he
owns 6 Acre 10 Guntha agriculture land in various pieces and he
runs a hotel in partnership. While dealing with the issue of income,
the Tribunal has not considered the income of the Claimant. In my
view, the Claimant owns 6 Acre agricultural land and he was running
a hotel in partnership. The Tribunal should have considered his
notional monthly income. Considering evidence on record, I am
considering it at Rs.3,000/- per month. The Tribunal has fixed 70%
contributory negligence on Respondent’s bus driver and 30% on the
Claimant. The FIR in respect of the accident was registered against

Megha

3/6

2_fa_361_2002.doc

the driver of the Respondent-Corporation. To prove the negligence
of the Claimant, no witness is examined by the Respondent. Inspite
of that 30% contributory negligence is fixed on the Claimant, which
is not proper as offence is registered against the driver of the
Respondent. Hence, I am holding that the accident was caused due
to sole negligence of the driver of the Respondent-Corporation and
he was solely responsible for the accident. The Tribunal has not
awarded future prospect. The Tribunal has not awarded amount for
loss of amenities, special diet and conveyance. As the Claimant has
suffered 50% disability, it should have been awarded. The multiplier
has not been applied while calculating the compensation.

¶33

6. Considering the above reasons, the Claimant is entitled

¶34

for following compensation:-

¶35

`Income=3000 x12`	`36,000`
`Less :50%` `disability`	`18,000`
`Multiplier of 17`	`18,000 x` `17=3,06,000/-`
	`Total Loss of income 3,06,000/-`
`2. Future prospects` `(self employed` `(40% of total` `income)`	`1,22,400`

Megha

4/6

2_fa_361_2002.doc

`3. Medical`	`76,000`
`expenses`
`4. Pain and` `Suffering`	`25,000`
`5. Loss of` `Amenities`	`50,000`
`6. Special Diet`	`15,000`
`7. Conveyance`	`15,000`	`3,03,400`
	`Total`	`6,09,400/-`

¶40

The Claimants are entitled for Rs.6,09,400. If this amount is
deducted from the compensation awarded by the Tribunal of
Rs.99,000/-, it comes to Rs.5,10,400/-

¶41

7. Considering the above reasons, I pass following order:(i) The First Appeal is allowed.

¶42

(ii) The Claimant is entitled for enhanced

¶43

compensation of Rs.5,10,400/- @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition.

¶44

(iii)The Appellant-Insurance Company shall deposit

¶45

the enhanced amount with interest within a

¶46

period of six weeks from the date on which this

¶47

order is uploaded.

¶48

(iv)The Claimant is allowed to withdraw the

Megha

5/6

2_fa_361_2002.doc

deposited amount alongwith accrued interest

¶53

thereon.

¶54

(v) The statutory amount be transmitted to the

¶55

Tribunal alongwith accrued interest thereon.
The parties are at liberty to withdraw it, as per
Rule.

¶56

8. All pending Civil/Interim applications are disposed of.

¶57

(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)

¶58

Megha

¶59

6/6

Dinkar Rajaram Patil v. Commissioner, Kolhapur Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinkar Rajaram Patil v. Commissioner, Kolhapur Municipal Corporation 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

The New India Assurance Co.Ltd.Thr.Mumbai Legal Hub Vs Mr.Ramesh Shankarlal Bhanushali and Anr.

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited vs Smt Shobha Krishnat Shinge and Ors.

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited vs Smt Shobha Krishnat Shinge and Ors.

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs Hunkar Sakharam Mohite and Ors.

Mrs. Chayya Gangadhar Bhosale and Ors. Vs Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. through Its Manager Mr. Amit Ashwini Sharma

Riya Kailash Udasi and Ors. Vs Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Kolhapur