Partly allowed

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Sarjerao Ganpati Chougule

Bombay HC2 Feb 2024FA/494/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal by MSRTC against a motor accident claim award for a claimant whose right leg was amputated after an ST bus dashed his Luna moped. The High Court fixed 25% contributory negligence on the claimant, enhanced compensation by adding future prospects, prosthetic limb costs, loss of amenities, higher pain and suffering and a multiplier of 13, and partly allowed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs.4,54,116 @7.5% p.a. from filing of claim petition till realisation; statutory amount transmitted to tribunal.

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs… — Motor Accident Claims | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

218-FA-494-2006.doc

¶2

Shantanu Dhudum

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION

¶5

FIRST APPEAL NO. 494 OF 2006

¶6

Digitally signed by SHANTANU SHANTANU SHANKARSA SHANKARSA DHUDUM DHUDUM Date: 2024.02.16 10:56:59 +0530

¶7

Maharashtra State Road Transport)
Corporation, having its office)
at Vahatuk Bhavan, Dr. A. Nair Marg,)
Bellasis Road, Bombay Central,)
Bombay- 400 008)….Appellant
Org. Opponent
 Versus
Sarjerao Ganpati Chougule)
Age: 50 years.)
Occu: Service. )
R/o. Herle, Tal. Hatkanangle)
District – Kolhapur.)….Respondent

¶8

Ms. P. M. Bhansali i/b Mr. G. S. Hegde & Associates, Advocate for the
Appellant.

¶9

Mr. Jayant J. Bardeskar, Advocate for the Respondent.

¶10

CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.

¶11

DATE : 2nd FEBRUARY, 2024.

¶12

Oral Judgment. :

¶13

1. The issues involved in this appeal are contributory

¶14

negligence of the claimant and compensation awarded on higher side.

¶15

1/7

¶16

218-FA-494-2006.doc

¶17

Shantanu Dhudum

¶18

2.It is contention of learned counsel for the

¶19

Appellant/Corporation that accident occurred due to negligence of the
Claimant, as, the Claimant was driving Luna and he gave dash to the
bus but this fact is not considered by the Tribunal and held that
accident occurred due to sole negligence of the bus driver, which is
not proper. Learned counsel further submitted that to prove the
defense, the bus driver stepped into the witness box. Learned counsel
further submitted that the Tribunal has awarded compensation on
higher side under various head. Hence, requested to allow the Appeal.

¶20

3. It is contention of learned counsel for the

¶21

Respondent/Claimant that accident occurred due to sole negligence of
the bus driver as, he gave dash to the Luna on which the claimant was
riding. Offence was registered against the bus driver. Learned counsel
further submitted that the Tribunal has awarded compensation on
lower side. Due to accidental injuries, the claimant has suffered 80%
permanent physical disability as, right leg above knee is amputated of
the Claimant. Hence, requested to award the compensation for
prosthetic limb, loss of ameneties in life and pain and suffering. The
Tribunal has not awarded future prospects. Hence, requested to

¶22

2/7

¶23

218-FA-494-2006.doc

¶24

Shantanu Dhudum

¶25

award it.

¶26

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

¶27

order passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kolhapur (for short
“the Tribunal”).

¶28

5.It is claimant’s case that on 12th July, 2001 Claimant was
proceeding towards Sangli from village Herle by Luna Moped bearing
No.MH-9-G-7538. He was riding it slowly in moderate speed and he
was proceedings from the left side of the road. When he reached to
the spot of accident, at relevant time, S. T. Bus baring registration No.
MH-12-Q-8644 came from opposite direction in high speed and gave
dash to the Luna. Due to dash, he fell down and sustained grievous
injury. Due to accidental injury, his right leg above knee is amputated.
Offence was registered against the driver of offending bus.

¶29

6. It is contention of learned counsel for the

¶30

Appellant/Corporation that accident occurred due to negligence of the
Claimant. To prove the defense, the Appellant examined the driver of
the offending bus as DW-1 Shivaji Sutar. He has stated that on 12th

¶31

3/7

¶32

218-FA-494-2006.doc

¶33

Shantanu Dhudum

¶34

June, 2001, when he was proceeding on Ichalkaranji, Kolhapur road,
at that time, one tractor was coming from the opposite direction as
there was a bridge, he slowed down speedd of his bus. In the mean
time, one Luna came from the opposite direction in between the
tractor and S. T. bus. The luna driver dashed against the tractor
thereafter, he fell near his bus. His bus was towards the left side of the
road. On hearing the commotion he stopped the bus. The luna driver
had not given any dash to his bus. The accident did not take place due
to his fault but occurred due to negligence of the Claimant. In cross-
examination, he admitted that the width of road was 24 feet having
kachha road on either side. He saw the tractor from distance of 100
feet and he could see the luna, which was behind tractor. He was
present at the time of preparing spot panchanama. After the accident,
his bus stopped at the distance of 150 feet. The luna had fallen
towards left side of bus. He admitted that at the time of accident, the
speed of bus was 30 to 40 kmph. At the speed of 30 to 40 kmph, after
applying brakes the bus would have been stopped on the spot. He
further admitted that after incident police investigated the matter and
lodged prosecution against him. He did not file any complaint against
the Superior Police Officer for lodging case against him. While dealing

¶35

4/7

¶36

218-FA-494-2006.doc

¶37

Shantanu Dhudum

¶38

with issue of negligence, the Tribunal has observed that accident
occurred due to sole negligence of bus driver as, he gave dash to the
luna, on which claimant was riding.

¶39

7. Considering the evidence on record, I am holding 25%
negligence of claimant and 75% negligence of bus driver. The
Tribunal has not awarded future prospects. The Claimant has suffered
permanent physical disability as his right leg above the knee is
amputated and he has lost his job but, the Tribunal has not awarded
future prospects hence, I am considering the future prospects.
Tribunal has not awarded compensation for prosthetic limb hence, I
am considering it Rs.3,00,000/- for prosthetic limb. The Tribunal has
not awarded for loss of amenities in life. Considering the nature of
injuries, I am considering Rs.1,00,000/- for loss of amenities in life.
The Tribunal has awarded pain and suffering on lower side hence, I
am considering Rs.1,00,000/- for pain and suffering. The Tribunal has
applied multiplier of 11. At the time of accident deceased was 49
years old, it should be 13 hence, I am considering multiplier of 13.

¶40

8. Considering above calculations, the claimants are entitled

¶41

5/7

¶42

218-FA-494-2006.doc

¶43

Shantanu Dhudum

¶44

for following compensation.

¶45

MonthlyIncome	Rs.4,236/-
Annual Income(Rs.4,236/- X 12)	Rs.50,832/-
Add: 30% futureprospects	Rs.15,249/-
Total Income	Rs.66,081/-
Multiplier 13(Rs.66,081/- X 13)	Rs.8,59,053/-
Medical Expenses	Rs.54,754/-
Prosthetic Limb	Rs.3,00,000/-
Special Diet	Rs.15,000/-
Conveyance/transport	Rs.10,000/-
Loss of amenities	Rs.1,00,000/-
Pain and suffering	Rs.1,00,000/-
Total amounts	Rs.14,38,807/-
25% deducts	Rs.3,59,701/-
Total compensation	Rs.10,79,106/-
Less awarded bythe Tribunal	Rs.6,24,990/-
Enhanced amount	Rs.4,54,116/-

¶46

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

¶47

ORDER

¶48

i. Appeal is partly allowed.

¶49

ii. The claimant is entitled for enhanced amount of

¶50

Rs.4,54,116/- @ 7.5% interest per annum from the

¶51

date of filing claim petition, till realisation of the

¶52

amount.

¶53

iii. The claimant is permitted to withdraw deposited

¶54

6/7

¶55

218-FA-494-2006.doc

¶56

Shantanu Dhudum

¶57

amount along with accrued interest thereon.

¶58

iv. The statutory amount be transmitted to the tribunal

¶59

along with accrued interest thereon. The parties are

¶60

at liberty to withdraw it, as per Rule.

¶61

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

¶62

(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)

¶63

7/7

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Sarjerao Ganpati Chougule

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Sarjerao Ganpati Chougule

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

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