Allowed

Prajot Mohan Alat v. Mohan Jalinder Alat and Anr.

Bombay HC2 Apr 2024FA/723/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

First appeal by a claimant who lost his right leg in an accident at age 15 seeking enhancement of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal compensation. The Court fixed notional monthly income at Rs.6,000, took 100% functional disability with 40% future prospects, and enhanced compensation to Rs.24,39,433 with interest.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs.24,39,433 with 7.5% interest from date of filing; insurer directed to deposit within six weeks; withdrawal of deposited amount permitted.

Prajot Mohan Alat Vs Mohan Jalinder Alat and Anr. — Motor Accident Claims | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

347-FA-723-2022.doc

¶2

Shantanu Dhudum

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION

¶5

FIRST APPEAL NO. 723 OF 2022

¶6

Digitally signed by SHANTANU SHANTANUSHANKARSADHUDUM SHANKARSADHUDUMDate:2024.04.17 10:19:09 +0530

¶7

Prajyot S/o. Mohan Alat ) Age: 19 years, Occu – Education ) Both R/o- 31, Sindhu Vihar, ) Jule Solapur, Vijapur Road ) Solapur. ) ….Appellant (Orig. Claimant) Versus 1. Mohan S/o. Jalindar Alat ) Age: 48 years, Occ: Business ) R/o-31, Sindhu Vihar, ) Jule Solapur, Vijapur Road, ) Solapur. ) 2. Royal Sundaram Alliance Ins. Co. Ltd.) Having Office at Hotgi Road, ) Vishram Nagar, Solapur. ) ….Respondents ----Mr. R. S. Alange, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. Nikhil Mehta i/b KMC Legal Venture, Advocate for the Respondent No.2.

¶8

CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. DATE : 2^nd APRIL, 2024.

¶9

Oral Judgment. :

¶10

1. By this appeal, Appellant/Claimant is seeking enhancement

of compensation.

1/7

347-FA-723-2022.doc

Shantanu Dhudum

It is contention of learned counsel for the Appellant that due to accidental injuries the Appellant has suffered 70% permanent physical disability. Appellant’s right leg is amputated. At the time of accident, Appellant was 15 years old. Due to accidental injuries Appellant is unable to do any work. He could not perform marriage due to disability. He is totally dependent on the income of his parents. The Tribunal has awarded lumpsum compensation amount of Rs.5,00,000/-, which is erroneous. Hence, requested to allow the Appeal.

¶16

Learned counsel for the Respondent No.2/Insurance Company vehemently submitted that the Tribunal has considered all the aspects while passing judgment and order and no interference is required in it. Learned counsel further submitted that no evidence is produced on record to prove that due to accident Appellant is unable to do any work. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is proper and the disability considered by the Tribunal is proper. Hence, requested to dismiss the Appeal.

¶17

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

2/7

347-FA-723-2022.doc

Shantanu Dhudum

Admittedly, due to accidental injuries the Claimant has suffered 70% permanent physical disability, his disability is not challenged by the Respondent No.2/Insurance Company. While awarding compensation, the Tribunal has not considered notional monthly income of the Claimant. At the time of accident the Claimant was 15 years old. He was studying in 12^th Standard. The Tribunal should have considered notional monthly income of the Claimant. As, Claimant was studying in 12^th Standard, I am considering his notional monthly income at Rs.6,000/- per month. Learned counsel for the Respondent submits that Rs.6,000/- per month income is on higher side and the Claimant was studying in 12^th Standard, it should be considered on lower side.

¶22

In my view, due to 70% permanent physical disability the Claimant is unable to do any work. He would not be able to pursue his dream and he is not able to get job as per his wish hence, I am considering his monthly income at Rs.6,000/- per month. The Tribunal has considered disability of the Claimant at 70%. It is contention of learned counsel for the Appellant/Claimant that it should be 100% functional disability.

¶23

Learned counsel for the Respondent No.2/Insurance

3/7

347-FA-723-2022.doc

Shantanu Dhudum

Company vehemently submitted that disability considered by the Tribunal is proper as no evidence was produced on record to show that there is 100% functional disability of the Claimant. In my view, it has come on record that due to accidental injuries, the Claimant’s right leg is amputated and after the accident, he is unable to do any work. He would not get any job due to accidental injuries. At the time of accident the injured was 15 years old hence, I am considering functional disability of the Claimant at 100%. As per view of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC), the Claimant is entitled for 40% future prospect. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,00,000/- lumsump compensation amount, I am considering Rs.2,00,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.3,00,000/- for loss of amenities in life, Rs.1,00,000/- for attendance charges, Rs.3,00,000/- for loss of marriage prospects, Rs.25,000/- for special diet and Rs.1,00,000/- for loss of expectation of life.

¶28

Learned counsel for the Respondent/Insurance Company strongly objected for awarding the compensation under the above heads on the ground that it is on higher side. In my view, due to accidental injuries, the Claimant has suffered injuries to 1) multiple

4/7

347-FA-723-2022.doc

Shantanu Dhudum

lungs contusions with fracture i.e. 3^rd , 4^th and 5^th right side ribs, 2)

¶33

Deep burns full thickness of left side chest wall and nipple areoca 10 X 10 Cm. 3) Right thigh full thickness burns 18 X 20 X 4 cm. Long. 4)

¶34

Deep burns over leg lower third and ankle area eventually deep muscles also get necrosed due to burns and tibia get exposed with necrosed periosteurm eventually requiring below knee amputation. Considering the injuries suffered by the Claimant at the tender age, the compensation awarded by this Court is proper as the pain of the claimant cannot be calculated in the terms of money. As the Right leg of the Claimant has been amputated, I am awarding Rs.5,00,000/for prosthetic leg. I am intending to award Rs.15,00,000/- for prosthetic leg. The learned counsel for the Respondent No.2/Insurance Company submitted that this Court has awarded compensation under other heads to the Claimant hence, compensation for prosthetic leg be awarded on lower side. Considering his submissions, I am awarding Rs.5,00,000/- for prosthetic leg.

¶35

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

5/7

347-FA-723-2022.doc

Shantanu Dhudum

Monthly Income	Rs.6000/-
Annual Income	Rs.72,000/-
Add: 40% future prospects	Rs.28,800/-
Total	Rs.1,00,800/-
Multiplier 18	Rs.18,14,400/-
Hospital Charges	Rs.3,50,580/-
Medical Charges	Rs.17,953/-
Pain and suffering	Rs.2,00,000/-
Inconvenience	Rs.1,00,000/-
Loss of amenities in life	Rs.3,00,000/-
Attendance Charges	1,00,000/-
Marriage prospectus	Rs.3,00,000/-
Special Diet	Rs.25,000/-
Loss of expectation in life	Rs.1,00,000/-
Total compensation	Rs.33,07,933/-
Less awarded by the Tribunal	Rs.8,68,500/-
Enhanced amount	Rs.24,39,433/-

¶40

Learned counsel for the Appellant/Claimant submitted that 9% interest be awarded on enhanced amount.

¶41

Learned counsel for the Respondent No.2/Insurance Company

¶42

submitted that, it would be on higher side hence, requested to awarded the interest on lower side.

¶43

Considering the submission of learned counsel for the Respondent No.2/Insurance Company, I am awarding @7.5% interest per entitled on enhanced amount.

¶44

In view of above, I pass following order.

6/7

347-FA-723-2022.doc

Shantanu Dhudum

ORDER

i. Appeal is allowed.

¶50

ii. The claimant is entitled for enhanced amount of

¶51

Rs.24,39,433/- from the date of filing claim petition

¶52

till realisation of the amount.

¶53

iii. The Claimant is permitted to withdraw the

¶54

deposited amount along with accrued interest

¶55

thereon.

¶56

iv. The Respondent No.2/Insurance Company shall

¶57

deposit the enhanced amount along with accrued interest thereon, within six weeks after receipt of the order.

¶58

v. The Claimant shall pay the deficit Court fees on

¶59

enhanced amount, as per Rule.

¶60

All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶61

(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)

¶62

7/7

Prajot Mohan Alat v. Mohan Jalinder Alat and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prajot Mohan Alat v. Mohan Jalinder Alat and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Sunil Janu Kulye and Ors. Vs Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. Thr. Manager and Ors.

Mahadeo Rama Chormale Vs Sabale Waghire Fleet Owners Pvt. Ltd.

Namdev Vishnupant Shinde and Ors. Vs Bajaj Allianz General Insuranec Company Limited and Ors.

Shriram General Insurance Company Limited through Legal Manager Mr. Sagar Gangurde vs Smt. Divya Dashrat Gharat and Ors.

Shriram General Insurance Company Limited through Legal Manager Mr. Sagar Gangurde vs Smt. Divya Dashrat Gharat and Ors.

Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd. vs Smt. Sugandha Waman Belanekar and Ors.