Allowed

Subhash Motilal Mohata v. Arun Digmbar Mohire and Anr.

Bombay HC12 Feb 2024FA/2009/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Claimant sought enhancement of motor accident compensation for head injury involving skull fracture and removal of part of the skull, leaving a permanent defect. The High Court found the Tribunal award too low, increased amounts under several heads including future medical expenses, and allowed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.4,10,000/- at 7.5% per annum from date of claim petition till realisation; insurer to deposit enhanced amount within six weeks.

Subhash Motilal Mohata Vs Arun Digmbar Mohire and Anr. — Motor Accident Claims | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

214-FA- 2009-2008-JUDG.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

FIRST APPEAL NO.2009 OF 2008

¶4

Shri.Subhash Motilal Mohata } Age-50 years, Occupation : Service, } R/o. 120, Cooper Colony, Sadarbazar, } (Org. Claimant) Satara } ….Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Digitally signed NILAM by NILAM SANTOSH SANTOSHKAMBLE KAMBLE Date: 2024.02.27 18:21:02 +0530

¶7

Aurn Digambar Mohire } Age-Adult, Occupation : Service, } R/o. 514, Mangalwar Peth, Satara } } 2. National Insurance Co. Ltd. } Brach Office, Ganeshchandra Chamber, } Powai Naka, Satara. } ….Respondents

¶8

Mr.Sangramsinh Yadav a/w Mr.Harvinder Kaur Rogi, for the Appellant.

¶9

Ms.Poonam Mital, for Respondent No.2.

¶10

CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.

¶11

DATE : 12^th FEBRUARY 2024

¶12

ORAL JUDGMENT :-

¶13

. By way of this Appeal, the Appellant-Claimant is seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶14

It is contention of the learned counsel for the

¶15

Appellant-Claimant that, due to accidental injuries the

¶16

N.S. Kamble page 1 of 5

¶17

214-FA- 2009-2008-JUDG.doc

¶18

Appellant-Claimant has suffered injury to his brain. The fractured portion of skull is removed. The Claimant was unconscious for 10 days. Due to accidental injuries the Claimant is unable to do any work, but this fact is not considered by the Tribunal and has awarded compensation on lower side. Hence, requested to allow the Appeal.

¶19

It is contention of learned counsel for RespondentInsurance Company that, the Claimant has suffered 10% physical permanent disability. Considering the disability the Tribunal has passed reasoned judgment and order. No interference is required in it.

¶20

I have heard both learned counsel. Perused judgment

¶21

and order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (‘The Tribunal’ for short), Satara.

¶22

To prove the disability the Claimant examined himself. He has stated that due to the accidental injuries he was admitted in Civil Hospital, Satara. He was unconscious and serious. Thereafter, he was referred to Sanjeevani City Scan, Satara. In City Scan it was found that, his skull was fractured.

¶23

N.S. Kamble page 2 of 5

¶24

214-FA- 2009-2008-JUDG.doc

¶25

Then he was shifted to Girija Hospital. Nothing elicited in his cross-examination. To prove the disability the Claimant has examined PW-2 Dr.Sunil Yadav, at Exhibit-42. He has stated that the Claimant was admitted in his hospital. He was brought to his hospital from Civil Hospital. He was unconscious and serious. His City Scan was done. In City Scan it was found that, the Claimant was having fracture of skull and large subdural haemotomo on right side. He was operated on emergency basis and that blood clot was removed. Fracture portion of skull bone was also removed. At present, it does not have protection to his brain. The Claimant was unconscious for 10 days. The Claimant was attending the hospital for regular followup for four months, thereafter, also he came for regular follow-up. Because of skull defect the Claimant has 10% permanent physical disability. The Certificate is at Exhibit-46. In cross-examination this witness admitted that after removing blood clot patient became normal after two to three months and skull bone removal cannot be developed. Deformity can be reduced by cosmetic surgery. Considering the evidence on record the Tribunal has awarded

¶26

N.S. Kamble page 3 of 5

¶27

214-FA- 2009-2008-JUDG.doc

¶28

compensation of Rs.2,44,902/- under various heads. In my view it is on lower side. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- for pain and suffering and mental agonies, it should be Rs.50,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,000/- for special diet and convenience, it should be Rs.30,000/-, for attendance Rs.30,000/-. Considering the brain injury and there is no portion of part of skull, I am considering Rs.2,50,000/- for future medical expenses. The Tribunal has not awarded the amount for inevitable expectations, I am considering it at Rs.50,000/-.

¶29

In view of above I pass following order.

¶30

ORDER

¶31

(i) The Appeal is allowed.

¶32

(ii) The Claimant is entitled for Rs.4,10,000/- @ 7.5% per annum from date of the filing of the Claim

¶33

Petition till realization of the amount.

¶34

(iii) The Respondent-Insurance Company shall deposit the enhanced amount before the Tribunal along with accrued interest thereon within 6 weeks after receipt of this order.

¶35

N.S. Kamble page 4 of 5

¶36

214-FA- 2009-2008-JUDG.doc

¶37

(iv) The Claimant is permitted to withdraw the deposited amount alongwith interest.

¶38

(v) All pending Civil/Interim Applications are disposed of.

¶39

(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)

¶40

N.S. Kamble page 5 of 5

Subhash Motilal Mohata v. Arun Digmbar Mohire and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhash Motilal Mohata v. Arun Digmbar Mohire 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, Thane Vs Ramkrishna Chintaman Kane and Ors.

Smt Maimuna Wd/O Akhtar Bhopalwala Vs Mr. Abhijeet S/O Dayandeo Thorat and Ors.

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Ushakumari Brijkumar Yadav and Ors.

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, through Divisional Controller, Thane Vs Alka Prakash Kute @ Kunte and Ors.

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, through Divisional Controller, Thane Vs Smt. Aruna Gangadhar Kute

United Indian Insurance Company Limited, Raigad Vs Girish Vasant Sathe and Anr.