Bombay High Court
Gajanan Chinduji Khandare vs M.S.R.T.C Yvt on 16 April, 2016
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
fa118.07.odt 1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
FIRST APPEAL NO.118 OF 2007
APPELLANT: Gajanan Chinduji Khandare, Aged
about 34 years, Occ. Nil, R/o
Tolipura, Ner-Parsopant, Tah. Ner,
Distt. Yavatmal.
-VERSUS-
RESPONDENT: Maharashtra State Road Transport
Corporation, Mumbai, through its,
Divisional Controller, Arni Road,
Yavatmal, Tah. & Distt. Yavatmal.
Shri W. G. Paunikar, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri A. S. Mehadia, Advocate for the respondent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.
DATED: 16
th APRIL, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. The present appeal has been filed by the original
claimant seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation
granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Yavatmal in
proceedings under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
(for short, the said Act).
2. It is the case of the appellant that he was working as a
Welder and was earning Rs.3000/- per month. On 26-1-1996
when he was proceeding on a Scooter, the said vehicle was dashed
fa118.07.odt 2/4
from the backside by a Bus belonging to the respondent -
Corporation The appellant sustained injuries in the said accident.
His index finger as well as middle finger of his right hand was
crushed resulting in 40% disability. He, therefore, filed the
proceedings for grant of compensation of Rs.2,70,00/- under
Section 166 of the said Act.
3. The appellant examined himself below Exhibit-32 and
relied upon the disability certificate at Exhibit-41. No evidence
was led by the respondent. The Claims Tribunal granted an
amount of Rs.1,08,000/- as compensation. Being aggrieved, the
present appeal has been filed.
4. Shri Paunikar, learned Counsel for the appellant
submitted that the Claims Tribunal ought to have granted higher
compensation considering the fact that the index finger of the right
hand of the appellant was required to be amputed resulting in 40%
disability. He submitted that the Claims Tribunal merely took into
consideration the loss of earning capacity at Rs.400/- per month
which was on a lower side. According to him, by taking notional
income of Rs.3000/- per month, the loss of earning would be 40%
thereof. He then submitted that the multiplier of 17 was required
to be applied considering the age of the appellant to be 27 years, 7
months on the date of the accident. In so far as the other heads
fa118.07.odt 3/4
under which the compensation was granted, it was submitted that
the medical expenses were granted on the basis of the bills
produced. He did not seek enhancement on other heads of
compensation.
5. Shri A. S. Mehadia, learned Counsel for the
respondents supported the impugned judgment. He submitted that
the calculation of compensation by the Claims Tribunal in para 19
of the impugned judgment is legal and proper not requiring
interference.
6. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the
parties, I have perused the records of the case and I have also gone
through the impugned judgment.
7. The following point arises for consideration:
Whether a case for enhancement in the amount of
compensation has been made out?
8. The appellant examined himself below Exhibit-32.
According to him, he was earning Rs.100/- per day by doing the
work of welder. By treating the notional income of the appellant
as Rs.3000/- per month, the annual income would have been
Rs.36,000/-. Considering the disability which is certified as 40%,
the loss of earning capacity would be Rs.14,400/- (40% of
Rs.36,000). Considering the age of the appellant to be 27 years, 7
fa118.07.odt 4/4
months, the multiplier of 17 would apply. The loss of earning
capacity would, therefore, be Rs.2,44,800/- (Rs.14,400 x 17).
The Claims Tribunal wrongly calculated the loss of
earning capacity at Rs.4800/- per annum. The compensation to
that extent is liable to be enhanced. In so far as the other heads of
compensation are concerned, the medical expenses have been
granted on the basis of the bills produced. Similarly, the
compensation granted on other heads appears to be reasonable.
The point as framed is answered by holding that the appellant is
entitled for some enhancement in the amount of compensation.
The same would be against head No.(ii) of Rs.2,44,800/- in the
impugned judgment.
9. In view of aforesaid, the following order is passed:
(1) The judgment dated 25-3-2004 in M.A.C.P.
No.131/1996 is partly modified. The compensation under item
(ii) is enhanced to Rs.2,44,800/-. The compensation granted as
per item Nos.(i) and (iii) to (vi) is maintained.
(2) The first appeal is partly allowed in aforesaid terms
with no order as to costs.
JUDGE
//MULEY//
