Allowed

Shri Nitin Vasantrao Wagh v. Shri Himmatsingh S/O Sardar Bhagatsingh and Ors.

Bombay HC2 Feb 2024FA/104/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed this appeal against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Enhanced the compensation from Rs. 1,49,068 to Rs. 16,17,932 with 7.5% interest. Ordered the insurance company to deposit the enhanced amount within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs. 16,17,932 @ 7.5% interest from filing till realization. Respondent to deposit amount within six weeks.

Shri Nitin Vasantrao Wagh Vs Shri Himmatsingh S/O… — Motor Accident Claims | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

202-FA-104-2001.doc

¶2

Shantanu Dhudum

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION

¶4

FIRST APPEAL NO. 104 OF 2001

¶5

Digitally signed by SHANTANU SHANTANU SHANKARSA SHANKARSA DHUDUM DHUDUM Date: 2024.02.15 15:16:30 +0530

¶6

1. Nitin Vasantrao Wagh)
 Aged: 21 years, Occu: Education.)
 R/o 41, G. G. O. Colony, Sainik Nagar,)
 Sadar Bazar, Satara.)
….Appellant
 Versus
1. Himmatsingh Putrashri Sardar Bhagatsingh,)
 Aged: Major , Occu: Driver, r/o Ghavani, )
 District: Rahak haryana, State, )
 Driving Licence No. 3530/65072;)
2. Nagachar K.)
 Aged: Major, Occu: Business,)
 R/o. K. R. Extn. Hoskote, District: Bangolore)
3. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.)
 Through Divisional Manager, )
 Satara Division, Satara.)
….Respondents

¶7

Mr. Harshal P. Nahata, Advocate for the Appellant.

¶8

Mr. Saumen Vidyarthi a/w Ms. Ishita Bhole and Mr. Mohit Turakhia
i/b Mr. Saumen Vidyarthi, Advocate for the Respondent No.3.

¶9

 CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.

¶10

 DATE : 2nd FEBRUARY, 2024.

¶11

1/5

¶12

202-FA-104-2001.doc

¶13

Shantanu Dhudum

¶14

Oral Judgment. :

¶15

1. By way of this appeal, the Claimant is seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶16

2.It is contention of learned counsel for the Appellant that the
Claimant has suffered 50% permanent physical disability due to
accidental injuries but, the Tribunal has awarded compensation on
lower side. Hence, requested to allow the Appeal.

¶17

3.It is contention of learned counsel for the Respondent
No.3/Insurance Company that while awarding compensation the
Tribunal has considered all the aspect as well as the Claimant was
student and on that basis, compensation is awarded, which is proper.
No interference is required in it.

¶18

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

¶19

order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Satara (for short

¶20

“the Tribunal”).

¶21

2/5

¶22

202-FA-104-2001.doc

¶23

Shantanu Dhudum

¶24

5. Admittedly, the Claimant has suffered 50%

¶25

permanent physical disability due to accidental injuries. The
Respondent No.3/Insurance Company has not challenged
this fact. Hence, I am considering 50% permanent physical
disability. While calculating compensation, the Tribunal has
not considered monthly income of the Claimant. At the time
of accident, the Claimant was Commerce Graduate and he
was state level cyclist and he was typist. To prove the
income of the Claimant he examined himself. Considering
evidence on record, the Claimant was B.com graduate and
he was state level cyclist and he was typist and accident
occurred in year 1993, I am considering notional monthly
income of the Claimant at Rs.4,500/- per month. At the time of
accident, the Claimant was 21 years old, the proper multiplier is 18.
Tribunal has not awarded future prospects. The Claimant is entitled
for future prospects. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.50,000/- for loss of
amenities in life, I am considering Rs.50,000/- more. The Tribunal has
not awarded compensation for special diet hence, I am considering
25,000/- for special diet and Rs.25,000/- for conveyance and

¶26

3/5

¶27

202-FA-104-2001.doc

¶28

Shantanu Dhudum

¶29

Rs.5,000/- for attendant.

¶30

6. Considering above calculations, the Claimant is entitled for

¶31

following compensation.

¶32

Monthlyincome	Rs.4,500/-
Annual Income(Rs.4,500/- X 12)	Rs.54,000/-
Multiplier 18(Rs.54,000/- X 18)	Rs.9,72,000/-
Add: Loss of future prospects: 50% of the loss of income	Rs.4,86,000/-
Pain and suffering	Rs.1,00,000/-
Loss of Amenities	Rs.1,00,000/-
Loss of special diet	Rs.25,000/-
Loss of conveyance	Rs.25,000/-
Attendant charge	Rs.5,000/-
Total compensation	Rs.17,17,068/-
Less awarded bythe Tribunal	Rs.1,49,068/-
Enhanced amount	Rs.16,17,932/-

¶33

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

¶34

ORDER

¶35

i. Appeal allowed.

¶36

ii. The claimant is entitled for enhanced amount of
Rs.16,17,932/- @ 7.5% interest per annum from filing
claim petition, till realisation of the amount.

¶37

iii. The Respondent/Insurance Company shall

¶38

4/5

¶39

202-FA-104-2001.doc

¶40

Shantanu Dhudum

¶41

deposit the enhanced amount along with accrued

¶42

interest thereon, within six weeks after receipt of the

¶43

order.

¶44

iv. The claimant is permitted to withdraw the deposited

¶45

amount along with accrued interest thereon.

¶46

8. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶47

(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)

¶48

5/5

Shri Nitin Vasantrao Wagh v. Shri Himmatsingh S/O Sardar Bhagatsingh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Nitin Vasantrao Wagh v. Shri Himmatsingh S/O Sardar Bhagatsingh 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

Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd.,Thane Vs Mehrul Sirajul Miraj and Anr.

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Deepika Jitendra Vangari through Her Father Jitendra Gangaram Vangari and Anr.

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Laya Jitendra Vangari

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Shaily Nishit Tiwari and Ors.

Vivekanand Rantidev Chudgar Vs Dimple Chudgar and Another

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs Sarjerao Ganpati Chougule