Allowed

Mr. Nilesh Dashrath Bambardekar v. Mr. Sandesh Ramakant Kubal and Anr.

Bombay HC16 Apr 2024FA/1310/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, Bombay, allowed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. The Single Judge found the Tribunal's award inadequate for a 20% permanent disability and 50% functional disability, enhancing the lump sum for pain and suffering by Rs.1,80,000 with interest.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs.1,80,000/lump sum with 7.5% p.a. interest from filing till realization; Respondent No.2 to deposit within six weeks.

Mr. Nilesh Dashrath Bambardekar Vs Mr. Sandesh Ramakant… — Motor Accident Claims | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

3-FA-1310-2019.doc

¶2

Shantanu Dhudum

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION

¶5

Digitally signed by SHANTANU SHANTANU SHANKARSA SHANKARSA DHUDUM DHUDUM Date: 2024.04.23 17:17:12 +0530

¶6

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1310 OF 2019

¶7

Nilesh Dashrath Bambardekar ) Age: 39 years, Occ: Business, ) R/o: Vetal Bambarde, Taluka Kudal, ) District: Sindhudurg- 416520 )….Appellant (Orig. Claimant/Petitioner) Versus 1. Sandesh Ramakant Kubal ) Age: 50 years, Occ: Service, ) R/o. Parab-wada, Vengurla, ) Taluka Vengurla, District: Sindhudurg ) 2. National Insurance Co. Ltd. ) 205/B, “E” Ward, Cosmos ) Commercial Complex, New Shahaputi, ) Kolhapur. )….Respondents (Orig. Opponents) ----Mr. Amey C. Sawant a/w Mr. V. V. Tapkir, Advocate for the Appellant. Ms. Shalini Shankar, Advocate for the Respondent No.2.

1/4

3-FA-1310-2019.doc

Shantanu Dhudum

CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.

¶12

DATE : 16^th APRIL, 2024.

¶13

Oral Judgment. :

¶14

By way of this appeal, Appellant/Claimant is seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶15

It is contention of learned counsel for the Appellant/ Claimant that due to accidental injuries the Claimant has suffered 20% permanent physical disability. Due to disability, the Claimant is unable to do any work his functional disability is 100%. He has suffered fracture to proximal third left humerus but the Tribunal has not considered this fact and has awarded Rs.3,01,600/- as compensation and Rs.1,01,600/- for medical expenses, which are on lower side. Hence, requested to allow the Appeal.

¶16

It is contention of learned counsel for the Respondent No.2/Insurance Company that while passing order, the Tribunal has considered all the aspects hence, no interference is required in it.

¶17

I have heard both learned counsel. Perused judgment and order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sindhudurg (for short “the Tribunal”).

¶18

Due to accidental injuries, the Claimant has suffered 20%

2/4

3-FA-1310-2019.doc

Shantanu Dhudum

permanent physical disability. The disability of the Claimant has not been challenged. It appears from record that the Claimant was admitted in the hospital for couple of days and he was operated for the injury. Due to disability he is unable to do any work, his functional disability is more than 50%. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,00,000/- lumsump amount for pain and suffering, mental shock, agony, loss of amenities, diet, nutrition and attendant charges. In my view, it is on lower side. As, Claimant was admitted in the hospital for couple of days and he has suffered 20% permanent disability, after accident he is unable to do his work, his functional disability is more than 50% hence, I am considering Rs.30,000/- for pain and suffering and Rs.50,000/- for loss of amenities in life and Rs.30,000/for special diet and conveyance and Rs.50,000/- for loss of expectation of life and Rs.20,000/- for attendant charges, total comes to Rs.1,80,000/-.

¶23

In view of above, I pass following order.

¶24

ORDER

¶25

i. Appeal is allowed.

¶26

ii. The Claimant is entitled for enhanced amount of

¶27

Rs.1,80,000/- @ 7.5% interest per annum from the

3/4

3-FA-1310-2019.doc

Shantanu Dhudum

date of filing claim petition till realisation of the

¶32

amount.

¶33

iii. The Respondent No.2/Insurance Company shall deposit the enhanced amount along with accrued interest thereon, within six week after receipt of the order.

¶34

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

¶35

v. The Claimant shall pay deficit Court fees on enhanced amount, as per Rule.

¶36

All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶37

(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)

¶38

4/4

Mr. Nilesh Dashrath Bambardekar v. Mr. Sandesh Ramakant Kubal and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Nilesh Dashrath Bambardekar v. Mr. Sandesh Ramakant Kubal and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bajaj Allianz General Insurnace Company Limited the Divisional Office Vs Kumar Anil Lalji Gajra and Ors.

Kumari Janhavi Chandrakant Mulane through Her Constituted Attorney Ashok Mate Vs Shri. Chandrashekhar Laxman Nayadu and Anr.

Sushila Vinayak More Vs Yeshwant Kisan Malme and Ors.

Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Jamir Amiruddin Sarkhot and Ors.

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Damodar Gangaram Manve and Ors.

Morshareel Bilaluddin Patel Vs Sarfraz Amirbasha Bikaji and Anr.