Bombay High Court
The Executive Engineer Minor ... vs Sachin Suresh Shahane & Ors on 25 April, 2016
Bench: P.R. Bora
1 FA 548 of 2005
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO.548 OF 2005
The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division No.1,
Aurangabad Road,
Ahmednagar.
...APPELLANT
(Ori.Oppo.No.2)
VERSUS
1. Sachin Suresh Shahane,
Age 32 years, Occu:Nil,
R/o. Pushkraj Complex,
Anand Nagar, Station Road,
Ahmednagar.
(Ori.Claimant)
2. Government of Maharashtra,
(Summons be served on
Collector, Ahmednagar.)
(3. Block Development Officer,
Irrigation Department,
Khairi Project, Kharda,Tq.
Jamkhed, Dist. Ahmednagar.)
(Respondent no.3 deleted as per Court's order
dt.1.08.2005)
(4. Ramesh Vyankoba Padelwar,
Age 42 years, Occu. Service,
R/o Khairi Project, Kharda, Tq.
Jamkhed, District: Ahmednagar)
(Appeal is abated as against respondent no.4
as per Registrar's order dt.31.1.2006)
...RESPONDENTS
(Res.No.1 Ori.Claimant
Nos. 2,3,4 ori.Resp.
No.1,3 & 4)
::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 23:47:50 :::
2 FA 548 of 2005
Mr.G.B.Rajale, Adv., for the appellant.
Mr.V.P.Latange, Adv., for respondent no.1.
...
CORAM: P.R.BORA, J.
DATE : APRIL 25th, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT:
1. Original Opponent No.2 has filed the present appeal
taking exception to the judgment and award passed in MACP
No.644/1995, decided on ig 11.2.2005 by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal at Ahmednagar.
2. The present respondent no.1 ( hereinafter referred
to as `claimant' ) had filed the aforesaid petition claiming
compensation on account of the injuries sustained by him in a
vehicular accident happened on 2.3.1995 having involvement of
car bearing No.MH-28/B-77 and tanker bearing No. MTO 237
owned by present appellant.
3. It was the contention of the claimant before the
Tribunal that the accident in question happened because of rash
and negligent driving by the driver of the tanker bearing
No.MTO 237. It was his further contention that he suffered
severe injuries in the aforesaid accident and incurred 30 per
cent permanent disablement because of the injuries caused to
him in the aforesaid accident. The left hand thumb of the
claimant was required to be amputated because of the injuries
caused to him in the aforesaid accident. As stated in the claim
petition, claimant was working as a Goldsmith and was earning
Rs. 2500/- per month. It was his further contention that
3 FA 548 of 2005
because of the amputation of his left thumb, he lost his earning
capacity to a substantial extent and he had, therefore, claimed
compensation amounting to Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs.two lacs).
4. The claimant examined himself before the Tribunal
and duly proved the disablement caused to him in the alleged
accident. The claim petition was resisted by the present
appellant on several grounds. The income of the claimant was
disputed and the percentage of disablement caused to him and
its effect on his earning capacity was also disputed. The
Tribunal, however, rejected the objections so raised by the
appellant and partly allowed the claim petition. The Tribunal
awarded total compensation of Rs.1,69,700/- (inclusive of
amount paid under No Fault Liability) to the claimant.
5. In the present appeal, the impugned judgment is
resisted mainly on the quantum of the compensation. Learned
Counsel for the appellant submitted that claimant has failed to
prove that he was doing the work of Goldsmith and, as such,
his income ought not have been determined by the Tribunal by
holding that the claimant was doing the work of goldsmith.
Learned Counsel invited my attention to the discussion made by
the Tribunal in paragraph nos. 10 to 12. Learned Counsel
submitted that the impugned award needs to be modified.
6. I have carefully gone through the impugned
judgment. The Tribunal has elaborately discussed about the
injuries caused to the original claimant and the job which was
being done by the claimant at the relevant time. There was
sufficient evidence on record to draw an inference that
deceased was carrying out the work of goldsmith. I do not see
4 FA 548 of 2005
that the Tribunal has committed any error in recording such
finding. Further, the Tribunal has rightly held the income of the
claimant and accordingly has determined the amount of
compensation. The compensation determined by the Tribunal
is just and fair. There is no substance in the objection raised
by the appellant that compensation awarded to the claimant is
unreasonable. There appears no reason for causing
interference in the impugned Judgment and Award. Appeal is
devoid of any substance. Hence the following order:
ig ORDER
1) The First Appeal is dismissed without any order as
to the costs.
2) Original Claimant is permitted to withdraw the
amount deposited by the appellant before the executing Court
along with interest accrued thereon, if he has not already
withdrawn the same.
3) Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of.
( P.R. BORA, J. )
...
AGP/548-05fa
