Bombay High Court
Sou.Bhawana Uday Naik vs Laxmibai Shamlal Gaur & Others on 6 April, 2016
Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande
fa151.04.J.odt 1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO.151 OF 2004
Sou. Bhawana w/o Uday Naik,
Aged about 37 years,
Occupation - Household work,
Resident of Alsi Plots, Akola,
Tq. and Dist. Akola. ....... APPELLANT
...V E R S U S...
1] Laxmibai w/o Shamlal Gaur,
Adult, Occupation - Business.
2] Pawankumar s/o Shamlal Gaur,
Adult, Occupation - Driver.
Both No.1 and 2 R/o 557/7,
Meghdoot Nagar, Police Station,
Hiranaga, Indore (M.P.)
3] The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,
CBO II, Shiv Vilas Palace,
Rajbada, Indore (M.P.)
4] Rajeshkumar s/o Surajmal Agrawal,
Adult, Occupation - Business,
R/o Jaora Compound, Indore (M.P.)
5] Limla s/o Nathu Jati Sirwai,
Adult, Occupation - Business,
R/o Sham Gandwani, P.S. Gandwani,
Dist. Dhar (M.P.)
6] The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Divisional Office, 11-B, Ratlam Kothi,
Indore 452001 (M.P.) ....... RESPONDENTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri C.A. Joshi, Advocate for Appellant.
Shri P.G. Phatak, Advocate for Respondent Nos.3 and 6.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
::: Uploaded on - 11/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:12:37 :::
fa151.04.J.odt 2/5
CORAM: R.K. DESHPANDE, J.
th APRIL, 2016.
DATE: 6
ORAL JUDGMENT
1] In Motor Accident Claim Petition No.29 of 2001 under
Section 116 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunal has awarded
compensation of Rs.50,000/- on account of 25% permanent disability
suffered by the claimant in the accident which occurred on 10.05.1999.
The claimant is before this Court seeking further enhancement of
compensation.
2] Shri Joshi, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant
has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of Laxman Alias
Laxman Mourya v. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company
Limited and another reported in (2011) 10 SCC 756, and has urged that
the amount granted by the Tribunal on account of pain and suffering and
the loss of amenity is meagre. He further submits that the notional
income was required to be considered of Rs.15,000/- per annum and it
has been ignored by the Tribunal. He further submits that 50% rise on
account of future prospects was also required to be taken into
consideration. Hence, on all these grounds, he submits that the claimant
is entitled to enhancement of compensation to the tune of Rs.2,65,000/-.
fa151.04.J.odt 3/5
3] Shri Phatak, the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance
Company has vehemently opposed the claim and submits that the
Tribunal has awarded compensation on all the counts. He submits that
the Tribunal has recorded the finding that the claimant is the household
lady, and therefore, the question of loss of income does not at all arise,
and the contention on that count raised by the learned counsel for the
appellant is without any basis.
4]
The point for determination is as under:
[i] Whether the claimant is entitled to further enhancement of
compensation as claimed in this appeal?
5] Merely because, the claimant is the household lady not
engaged in any other job that would not prevent the Court from taking
into consideration the notional income of Rs.15,000/- per annum as is
mentioned in second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor
Vehicles Act. The contribution of the household lady in the maintenance
and upliftment of the family has to be given weightage, though it cannot
be counted in terms of money, at least the notional income can be taken
into consideration to compensate for the permanent physical disability.
6] In the present case, the claimant has suffered fracture
fa151.04.J.odt 4/5
resulting in 25% permanent disability, which has been vouched by the
Doctor, who has been examined by the claimant. The Tribunal has also
accepted the permanent disability to the extent of 25% and hence, this
Court will have to proceed on that footing. The notional income of the
claimant to the extent of Rs.15,000/- per annum has to be taken into
consideration and added to it is the 50% future prospects making the
yearly income of Rs.22,500/-. The appropriate multiplier in the present
case would be of 16 as the lady was aged about 35 years on the date of
occurrence of the accident. Thus, the total entitlement can be worked out
to Rs.3,60,000/-. The permanent disability to the extent of 25% would
make the entitlement of the claimant to Rs.90,000/-.
7] The Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- on account of loss of
family income, Rs.10,000/- for the treatment and expenses, and
Rs.5000/- on account of traveling expenses. The Tribunal has ignored
the compensation on account of the pain and suffering, which can be
taken by way of guesswork to Rs.75,000/- and on account of loss of
amenities the compensation can be enhanced to Rs.75,000/- as against
Rs.25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
8] In view of above, the appeal is allowed. The claimant has
established the claim for enhancement of compensation to the total sum
of Rs.2,65,000/- which becomes payable from the date of filing of the
fa151.04.J.odt 5/5
claim petition with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum till the date of
realization of the amount. The award passed by the Reference Court
stands modified to that extent. No order as to costs.
JUDGE
NSN
