Allowed

Shivaji Ananda Panire v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors.

Bombay HC7 Mar 2024FA/1161/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

First appeal by a motor accident claimant seeking enhancement of compensation for 90% permanent disability from crush injuries to the right lower limb. The court enhanced the assessed monthly income to Rs.4,000 with 25% future prospects, added amounts under several non-pecuniary heads and future medical expenses, and allowed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs.8,29,500 with 7.5% interest from date of claim petition; insurer to deposit within six weeks; deficit court fees payable on enhanced amount.

Shivaji Ananda Panire Vs United India Insurance Company… — Motor Accident Claims | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

269-FA-1161-2016-JUDGMENT.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

FIRST APPEAL NO.1161 OF 2016

¶4

Shivaji Ananda Panire } Age-45 years, Occ : Milk Business } R/at Karve tal, Walwa, District-Sangli } ...Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

NILAM Digitally signed byNILAM SANTOSH SANTOSH KAMBLE KAMBLE Date: 2024.04.0511:31:07 +0530

¶7

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. } Samarth Mansion, Mahaveer Nagar, Vakhar } Bhag, Near Dena Bank, Sangli } 2. The Secretary } Prakash Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Urun } Islampur, Taluka-Walwa, District-Sangli } 3. Shri.Parshuram Shivaji Hadve } Age-35, Occ : Driver } R/o. Bahe, Taluka Walwa, District-Sangli } ...Respondents ---Mr.Umesh R. Mankapure i/b Ms.Bhavika Shinde, for the Appellant. Ms.Poonam Mital, for Respondent No.1. ----

¶8

CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.

¶9

DATE : 7^th MARCH 2024

¶10

ORAL JUDGMENT :-

¶11

. By way of this Appeal, the Claimant is seeking

¶12

N.S. Kamble page 1 of 5

¶13

269-FA-1161-2016-JUDGMENT.doc

¶14

enhancement of the compensation.

¶15

It is contention of the learned counsel for the

¶16

Appellant-Claimant that due to accidental injuries the Claimant has suffered 90% permanent physical disability, but Tribunal has not awarded future prospects. At the time of the accident the Claimant was doing marketing business and was earning Rs.6,000/- per month, but the Tribunal has considered monthly income of Claimant at Rs.3,000/-, which is on lower side. The learned counsel further submitted that the Tribunal has awarded compensation under other heads on lower side, it be awarded.

¶17

It is contention of the learned counsel for the Respondent-Insurance Company that while passing the order the Tribunal has considered all the aspects on that basis judgment and order is passed. No interference is required in it.

¶18

I have heard both learned counsel. Perused judgment and order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (‘The Tribunal’ for short), Islampur.

¶19

It is Claimant’s case that due to accidental injuries the Claimant has suffered 90% permanent physical disability. To

¶20

N.S. Kamble page 2 of 5

¶21

269-FA-1161-2016-JUDGMENT.doc

¶22

prove the disability the Claimant has examined Dr. Avinash Patil PW-2 at Exhibit-29. He has stated that due to accidental injuries Claimant has suffered severe crush injuries to right lower limb and the Claimant has suffered disability of 90%, while dealing with issue of disability the Tribunal has considered 50% disability. I am unable to understand the observations of the Tribunal as PW-2 who is expert witness has stated that after examining the Claimant he has issued disability certificate, he is expert witness, there is no reason to disbelieve his evidence. To prove the income, the Claimant has examined himself he has stated that at the time of accident he was doing milk business, and he was earning Rs.6,000/- per month. While dealing with the issue of income of the Claimant, the Tribunal has observed that no evidence was produced on record to show income of the Claimant on that basis the Tribunal has considered monthly income of the Claimant at Rs.3,000/-, in my view it is on lower side, as the Claimant was the sole earning member of his family, he was maintaining his family, hence I am considering Rs.4,000/-

¶23

as monthly income of the Claimant.

¶24

N.S. Kamble page 3 of 5

¶25

269-FA-1161-2016-JUDGMENT.doc

¶26

It has come in evidence of PW-2 Dr. Patil that further

¶27

surgery required on right leg below knee. It will cost Rs.2 lakh. The Tribunal has not awarded this amount hence, I am considering it. The Tribunal has awarded compensation for pain and suffering, special diet on lower side, I am increasing it for pain and suffering at Rs.50,000/- and for special diet at Rs.25,000/-. The tribunal has not awarded the amount for loss of expectation in life, loss of amenities in life , I am considering it at Rs.50,000/- each.

¶28

Considering the above calculations the Claimant is entitled for following compensation.

¶29

Particulars

¶30

Amount

¶31

Monthly Income Rs.4,000.00 Future Prospects 25% Rs.1,000.00 Total Income Rs.5,000.00 Loss of Income Rs.5000 x 12 x 14 Rs.8,40,000.00 Medical Expenses Rs.4,11,690.00 Physical Pain & Suffering Rs.50,000.00 Loss of Amenities Rs.50,000.00 Special Diet & Other Expenses Rs.25,000.00 Loss due to disfigurement Rs.50,000.00 Future Medical Expenses Rs.50,000.00

¶32

N.S. Kamble page 4 of 5

¶33

269-FA-1161-2016-JUDGMENT.doc

¶34

Loss of Expectation in life	Rs.50,000.00
Total compensation	Rs.15,26,690.00
Less awarded by the Tribunal	Rs.6,97,190.00
Total Enhanced Compensation	Rs.8,29,500.00

¶35

¶36

In view of above, I pass following order.

¶37

ORDER

¶38

(i) The Appeal is allowed.

¶39

(ii) The Claimant is entitled for enhanced amount of Rs.8,29,500/- @ 7.5% interest per annum along with accrued interest thereon from the date of filing of the Claim Petition till realization of the amount.

¶40

(iii) The Respondent-Insurance Company shall deposit the enhanced amount within six weeks after receipt of the order.

¶41

(iv) The Claimant is permitted to withdraw deposited amount along with accrued interest thereon.

¶42

(v) The Claimant shall pay Deficit Court fees on enhanced amount, as per Rules.

¶43

(vi) All pending Civil and Interim Applications are disposed of.

¶44

(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)

Shivaji Ananda Panire v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivaji Ananda Panire v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. 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

Mr. Bhaskar Bajirao Nathe Vs Mr. Suraj Raghunath Sandhan and Anr.

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., Mumbai Vs Mahesh Nagesh Ghodke and Anr.

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Ltd. Vs Smt. Dipti Viral Shah and Anr.

Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs Sushila Kisan Damase and Ors.

Sunil Kumar Sushik Kumar Nigam Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mrs. Deepali Shashikant Bhoi Vs Mr. Shashikant Vishwas Bhoi