Partly allowed

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Anjali Prashant Ravan and Othrs

Bombay HC28 Mar 2024FA/270/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

First appeals challenging the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award regarding a medical practitioner with 50% permanent disability. The court recalculated income, acknowledged accident-induced lung capacity reduction distinct from pre-existing asthma, and enhanced various heads of compensation.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs. 9,88,000/- awarded to claimant with 7.5% interest; insurer's appeal dismissed.

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Anjali Prashant Ravan and Othrs — Insurance | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

230-FA-2235-2007.doc

¶2

S.S.Kilaje

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

FIRST APPEAL NO. 2235 OF 2007

¶6

Anjali Prashant Ravan Appellant Age : 42, Occu.- Medical Practitioner (Orig. R/o. Dighanchi, Tal. Atpadi, Dist. Sangli … Claimant) Versus

¶7

1 Prashant Gangadhar Ravan Age : 54, Occu.- Owner / businessman. R/o. Dighanchi, Tal. Atpadi, Dist. Sangli

¶8

2 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Kamgar Bhavan, Sangli

¶9

3 Nitin Uday Honrao Respondents Age : 32, Occ. -Driver (Orig. R/o. Dighanchi, Tal. Atpadi, Dist. Sangli … Opponents)

¶10

WITH

¶11

FIRST APPEAL NO. 270 OF 2009

¶12

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Kamgar Bhavan, Sangli … Appellant Versus

¶13

1 Anjali Prashant Ravan Age : 40, Occu.- Medical Practitioner R/o. Dighanchi, Tal. Atpadi, Dist. Sangli

¶14

2 Prashant Gangadhar Ravan Age : 52, Occu.- Owner / businessman. R/o. Dighanchi, Tal. Atpadi, Dist. Sangli

¶15

3 Nitin Uday Honrao Age : 30, Occ. -Driver R/o. Dighanchi, Tal. Atpadi, Dist. Sangli

¶16

… Respondents

¶17

Mr. Tejpal S. Ingale, Advocate for the Appellant in FA/2235/2007 and for
Respondent No.1 in FA/270/2009.

¶18

Ms. Shalini Shankar, Advocate for Respondent No.2 in FA/2235/2007.
Ms. Poonam Mital, Advocate for Appellant in FA/270/2009.

¶19

1/6

¶20

230-FA-2235-2007.doc

¶21

S.S.Kilaje

¶22

 CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
 DATE : 28th MARCH, 2024.

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶24

1.This appeal is preferred by the appellant/claimant for
enhancement of compensation. The respondent No.2. -Insurance Company
has also preferred appeal challenging the Judgment and Order passed by
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sangli (for short “the Tribunal”) as
the appeal and cross appeal are against the same Judgment and Order, I
am deciding it by this common Judgment.

¶25

2.It is contention of learned counsel for the appellant/claimant
that claimant is B.A.M.S. doctor. Due to accidental injuries, she has
suffered 50% permanent physical disability. After the accident she is
unable to do her practice with full potential. The Tribunal has considered
her monthly income at Rs.10,000/- which is on lower side. The Tribunal
has not awarded future prospectus and the compensation awarded under
other heads are on lower side, hence requested to allow the appeal.

¶26

3.It is contention of learned counsel for respondent
No.2/Insurance Company that the Tribunal has considered monthly
income of claimant at Rs.10,000/- which is on higher side without any
evidence on record. She further submitted that the claimant was suffering
from Asthma before the accident, it has effected on her lung capacity but

¶27

2/6

¶28

230-FA-2235-2007.doc

¶29

S.S.Kilaje

¶30

this fact is not considered by the Tribunal and has awarded compensation
on higher side, hence requested to allow the appeal filed by respondent
No.2/ Insurance Company and dismiss the appeal filed by the claimant.

¶31

4.I have heard both the learned counsel. Perused the Judgment
and Order passed by the Tribunal. Admittedly, due to accidental injuries
the claimant has suffered 50% permanent physical disability. To prove
the disability, the claimant has examined four doctors. The respondent
No.2/Insurance Company has not challenged the disability of the claimant.
The Tribunal has considered monthly income of the claimant at
Rs.10,000/- per month. To prove the income claimant has examined
herself. She has stated that she is B.A.M.S. doctor, she runs hospital, her
income is more than Rs.10,000/-. In my view, as the claimant is B.A.M.S.
doctor, the income considered by the Tribunal is proper. While awarding
compensation, the Tribunal has considered future loss @Rs.15,000/-. It
has come on record that after the accident the claimant has continued her
work, hence I am considering 50% future prospects out of total future
prospects.

¶32

5.It is contention of learned counsel for respondent
No.2/Insurance Company that claimant was already suffering from
Asthma hence Tribunal should not have considered her disability. In my
view, it has come in the doctor’s evidence that due to accident, there was

¶33

3/6

¶34

230-FA-2235-2007.doc

¶35

S.S.Kilaje

¶36

contusion to lung of the claimant because of that she has breathing
problem and there was 50% reduction of lung capacity. So it cannot be
said that it was due to Asthma. As the claimant has suffered 50%
permanent physical disability, I am considering her income at Rs.5,000/-
per month. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 25,000/- for pain and suffering.
Considering the disability and as three surgeries have been performed on
the claimant, I am considering it Rs.75,000/-. The Tribunal has not given
compensation for loss of amenities in life, I am considering it at
Rs.50,000/-. The Tribunal has given amount for loss of expectation in life
at Rs.25,000/-, I am considering it Rs.50,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded
Rs.10,000/- for conveyance, I am considering it at Rs.25,000/-, as the
claimant was shifted to various hospitals. The Tribunal has not awarded
compensation for attendant. I am considering it Rs.25,000/-. The Tribunal
has not awarded compensation for future medical expenses. Considering
the nature of injuries, I am considering it Rs.25,000/-. The Tribunal has
not awarded compensation for special diet, I am considering it
Rs.25,000/-.

¶37

6.Considering the above calculations, the claimant is entitled for
following compensation.

¶38

`Particulars`	`Rs.`	`Entitlement`
`Monthly Income`	`Rs.`	`5,000.00`
`Annual Income (5,000 X 12)`	`Rs.`	`60,000.00`

¶39

4/6

¶40

230-FA-2235-2007.doc

¶41

S.S.Kilaje

¶42

`Futureprospects 50% (taken 50% of Rs.24,000)`	`Rs.`	`12,000.00`
`Multiplier Rs. 72,000 X 15`	`Rs.`	`10,80,000.00`
`Medical Bills`	`Rs.`	`17,000.00`
`Conveyance`	`Rs.`	`25,000.00`
`Pain and Suffering`	`Rs.`	`50,000.00`
`Loss of income considered for 3 months under` `medical treatment`	`Rs.`	`30,000.00`
`Attendant`	`Rs.`	`25,000.00`
`Future Medical Expenses`	`Rs.`	`25,000.00`
`Special Diet and Nourishment`	`Rs.`	`25,000.00`
`Loss of amenities of life`	`Rs.`	`50,000.00`
`Total`	`Rs.`	`13,27,000.00`
`Less compensation awarded by the Tribunal`	`Rs.`	`3,39,000.00`
`Total enhanced amount`	`Rs.`	`9,88,000.00`

¶43

Considering the above calculations, the claimant is entitled for

¶44

enhanced compensation of Rs.9,88,000/-.

¶45

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

¶46

ORDER

¶47

i.First Appeal No. 2235 of 2007 is allowed.
ii.First Appeal No. 270 of 2009 is dismissed.
iii.The claimant is entitled for enhanced amount of
Rs.9,88,000/- @7.5%. interest per annum from the
date of filing of claim petition till realisation of the
amount.

¶48

iv. The respondent No.2-Insurance company shall deposit

¶49

5/6

¶50

230-FA-2235-2007.doc

¶51

S.S.Kilaje

¶52

the enhanced amount along with accrued interest
thereon within 8 weeks from the receipt of this order.

¶53

v. The claimant is permitted to withdraw the deposited amount along with accrued interest thereon.

¶54

vi. The claimant shall pay deficit Court fees for enhanced amount if any as per rule.

¶55

8. The appeal is disposed of. All pending applications, if any also

¶56

disposed of.

¶57

 (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)

¶58

SONALI Digitally signedby SONALI SATISH SATISH KILAJEDate: 2024.04.26 KILAJE 12:47:49 +0530

¶59

6/6

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Anjali Prashant Ravan and Othrs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Anjali Prashant Ravan and Othrs

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 through Its Manager Legal Mr. Priyank Shah Vs Smt. Dipti Nitin Sankpal and Ors.

Yogesh @ Nunya Shashikant Pawar Vs State of Maharashtra

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs Kum. Shubham Dilip Kamble through Smt. Dipali Kamble on Behalf of Petitioner as a Natural Guardian

Mr. Bhivaji Bhagwat Chopade and Anr. vs Mr. Rajaram Jijaba Nalawade and Ors.

Sou.Kamal Vishnu Shendge vs Shri.Sayyad Dastagir Honmurgi and Ors.

Mr. Bhivaji Bhagwat Chopade and Anr. vs Mr. Rajaram Jijaba Nalawade and Ors.