Partly allowed

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. through Its Divisional Office v. Mr. Nagnath Rohidas Sannole and Anr.

Bombay HC14 Dec 2023FA/625/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court recalculated the compensation awarded in a motor accident case. While accepting the claimant's loss of livelihood due to amputation as 100% functional disability, the Court reduced the income component by deducting allowances. The appeal was partly allowed, directing the insurance company to refund excess compensation.

What did the court decide?

Compensation recalculated; Appellant directed to refund Rs.1,10,412/- to the claimant; Appellant permitted to withdraw balance.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. through Its Divisional… — Motor Accident Claims | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

904-FA-625-2017 speaking.doc

¶2

Shantanu Dhudum

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION

¶5

FIRST APPEAL NO. 625 OF 2017
WITH

¶6

Digitally signed bySHANTANU SHANTANU SHANKARSA SHANKARSA DHUDUM DHUDUM Date: 2024.03.04 19:06:44 +0530

¶7

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3397 OF 2016
IN

¶8

FIRST APPEAL NO. 625 OF 2017

¶9

United India Insurance Co. Ltd.)
Pune Regional Office,)
Through its Divisional Office)
Janata Shopping Centre,)
Navi Peth,)
Solapur)….Appellant
 (Orig. Opponent No.2)

¶10

 Versus

¶11

1. Mr. Nagnath Rohidas Sannole)
 Age: 26 years, Occ: Nil)
 R/o.:- 143/44, Railway Line,)
 Konapure Chal, Solapur. ) ….Res.No.1
 (Original Claimant)
2. The Commissioner,)
 Solapur Municipal Corporation)
 Solapur.)
….Respondents.

¶12

Mr. Amol Gatne for the Appellant.
Mr. R. S. Alange for the Respondent No.1.

¶13

CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.

¶14

DATE : 22nd DECEMBER, 2023.

¶15

This judgment is corrected in view of order dated 26/02/2024. 1/5

¶16

904-FA-625-2017 speaking.doc

¶17

Shantanu Dhudum

¶18

Oral Judgment. :

¶19

1. The issue involved in this appeal is income of the claimant is considered on higher side.

¶20

2.It is contention of learned counsel for the Appellant /
Insurance Company that Tribunal has considered monthly income of
the claimant at Rs.6,125/- per month, no sufficient evidence produced
on record, to prove the said salary and on that basis compensation is
awarded by the Tribunal, which is not proper. Learned counsel
further submitted that the physical disability of the Claimant was 60%
but, the tribunal has considered 100% functional disability, which is
not proper. Hence, requested to allow the Appeal.

¶21

3.It is contention of learned counsel for the Respondent
No.1/Claimant that, the Claimant was working in Betul Oil Mill
Limited Company, MIDC at Solapur as a worker. The personal
manager of the company was examined, to prove the income of the
Claimant. He has stated that the basic salary in year 2014 of Claimant
was Rs.6,125/-, on that basis the said salary is considered by the
Tribunal, which is proper. Hence, no interference is required in the
judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.

¶22

This judgment is corrected in view of order dated 26/02/2024. 2/5

¶23

904-FA-625-2017 speaking.doc

¶24

Shantanu Dhudum

¶25

4.I have heard both learned counsel. Perused judgment and

¶26

order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Solapur (for
short “the Tribunal).

¶27

5.To prove the income of the Claimant, Claimant has
examined the PW-3 Khaja Shaikh, the Personal Manager of the
Company, he has stated that Claimant was working in their company
and his salary in the month of February, 2014 of Rs.6,125/-. He has
produced the muster roll and salary register, it is at Exhibit- 34 and
35.

¶28

6.Considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal has
considered salary of Claimant at Rs.6,125/- per month. After perusal
of Exhibit-34 and 35, it appears that while considering the salary of
Claimant the Tribunal has not deducted HRA and Conveyance
Allowance and Washing Allowance. The Conveyance Allowance is of
Rs.775/- and Washing Allowance is of Rs.27/-, if it deducts from the
salary, it comes to Rs.5323/-. I am considering the net salary of the
Claimant at Rs.5323/-.

¶29

7.It is contention of learned counsel for the Appellant that the
Claimant has suffered 60% permanent disability but, the Tribunal has
considered 100% functional disability, which is on higher side. In my

¶30

This judgment is corrected in view of order dated 26/02/2024. 3/5

¶31

904-FA-625-2017 speaking.doc

¶32

Shantanu Dhudum

¶33

view, the Claimant was working as a worker in Betul Oil Mill due to
accidental injuries there is amputation of his right leg. Due to
amputation of right leg, he has lost his job and he is unable to do any
other work. It shows, there is 100% functional disability. I do not see
merit in the contention of learned counsel for the Appellant that the
Tribunal should have considered 60% permanent disability of the
Claimant. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.50,000/- for pain and
suffering, there is amputation of the right leg of the claimant, it
should be 1,00,000/- hence, I am considering it Rs.1,00,000/-. The
Tribunal has awarded amount of Rs.1,00,000/- for loss of amenities in
future life, I am considering it Rs.1,50,000/-.

¶34

8.In view of above calculation, Claimant is entitled for
following compensation.

¶35

`Gross Salary`	`Rs.6,125/-`
`Deduction`
`Conveyance Allowance`	`Rs.775/-`
`Washing Allowance`	`Rs.17/-`
`Net Salary`	`Rs.5,323/-`
`Rs.5,323/- X 12`	`Rs.63,876/-`
`Add: 50% Future Prospects`	`Rs.31,938/-`
`Total Income`	`Rs.95,814/-`
`Rs.95,814/- X 17 (Multiplier)`	`Rs.16,28,838/-`
`Reimbursement Medical Expenses`	`Rs.2,08,140/-`

¶36

This judgment is corrected in view of order dated 26/02/2024. 4/5

¶37

904-FA-625-2017 speaking.doc

¶38

Shantanu Dhudum

¶39

`Attendance Charge`	`Rs.30,000/-`
`Pain and Suffering`	`Rs.1,00,000/-`
`Loss of amenities in life`	`Rs.1,50,000/-`
`Travelling & Misc. Expenses`	`Rs.17,610/-`
`Total Compensation`	`Rs.21,34,588/-`
`Compensation awarded by` `tribunal`	`Rs.22,45,000/-`
`Amount to be Refunded to` `Insurance Company`	`Rs.1,10,412/-`

¶40

9. In view of above, I pass following order.

¶41

ORDER

¶42

i. Appeal is partly allowed.

¶43

ii. The Appellant/Insurance Company is permitted to withdraw Rs.1,10,412/- with proportionate interest from the deposited amount.

¶44

iii. The claimant is permitted to withdraw the balance amount along with proportionate interest.

¶45

iv. The statutory amount be transmitted to the tribunal along with accrued interest thereon. The parties are

¶46

at liberty to withdraw it, as per Rule.

¶47

10. All pending interim applications, if any, stand disposed off.

¶48

(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)

¶49

This judgment is corrected in view of order dated 26/02/2024. 5/5

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. through Its Divisional Office v. Mr. Nagnath Rohidas Sannole and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. through Its Divisional Office v. Mr. Nagnath Rohidas Sannole and Anr.

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

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, the Divisional Manager, Mumbai Vs Kavita Ningu Singh Thakur and Ors.

1.MRS. Sunita Azgarsen Chelliya and Anr. Vs 1. Mr. Jagat Kishore Balkrishna Kalantri and Ors.

The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Thr. Its Legal Hubtp-Hub Vs Smt. Nasreen Sajid Khan and Ors.

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Limited, Mumbai through Its Secretary Vs Mrs. Veena Shridhar

Vijay Arvind Pore Vs Rupali Ramdas Deshmukh and Othrs

Geetaben Jitendrakumar @ Jitu Vithalbhai Panchal and Ors. Vs Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., Thane and Anr.