Bombay High Court
United India Insurance Co. Ltd ... vs Anil Ratiram Choudhary Nagpur.& 2 ... on 21 March, 2016
Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande
1 fa237.04.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO. 237 OF 2004
United India Insurance Company Ltd.,
City Branch Office No.1, Rani Laxmi
Chowk, Sitabuldi, Nagpur, through
its Regional Manager, Nagpur Regional
Office, Shankar Nagar, Nagpur APPELLANT
...VERSUS...
1.
Anit Ratiram Choudhary,
aged about 25 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Sadar, Jain Mandir Road,
Azad Chowk, Nagpur.
2. Smt. Alka Jainarayan Niwal,
aged about major, Occ. Business,
R/o. 302, Shat Tarka Flats,
R.P.T.S. Road, Surendra Nagar, Nagpur.
3. Vishnu Laxman Savarkar
(appeal dismissed as per Court's
Order dated 16.07.2004), RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri D.N.Kukday, Advocate for appellant.
Shri S.P.Banik, counsel for Respondent no. 1
None for Respondent No.2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: R. K. DESHPANDE, J.
st
DATE : 21 MARCH 2016 .
ORAL JUDGMENT
1] In Claim Petition No. 439 of 2001 under Section
166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, claiming compensation of
2 fa237.04.odt
Rs.5,00,000/- for the injury suffered out of motor accident
which occurred on 04.04.2001, the Tribunal has awarded
compensation of Rs.3,83,700/- along with interest at the rate
of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its
realization. Different heads under which the compensation is
awarded by the Tribunal are stated below.
"i. Damages for permanent disability
sustained and pain and sufferings
of the accident Rs.1,50,000/-
ii. Damages for loss of pleasure
and enjoyment in future life Rs. 70,000/-
iii. Damages for loss of expectation
of life Rs. 25,000/-
iv. Damages for the expenses
incurred on the medical treatment
and the medicines Rs. 65,700/-
v. Damages for future medical
expenses Rs. 30,000/-
vi. Damages for expenses incurred
on attendant Rs. 9,000/-
vii. Damages for loss of earnings Rs. 24,000/-
viii. Damages for expenses incurred
on special diet Rs. 5,000/-
ix. Damages for expenses incurred
on conveyance Rs. 5,000/-
Total : Rs.3,83,700/-
2] The point for determination is whether the
Tribunal was justified in awarding the compensation under
3 fa237.04.odt
the different heads?
3] With the assistance of the learned counsels
appearing for the parties, I have gone through the judgment
delivered by the Tribunal. Except the evidence of the bills for
expenses at Exh.103 to 154, amounting to Rs.65,712/-, the
judgment delivered by the Tribunal does not refer to any
evidence in support of the other claims granted. On the
question of permanent disability, the oral evidence of the
Doctor is considered, but the assessment of damages or
compensation is without any basis. It is not known as to how
the damages awarded are calculated.
4] The Tribunal has fixed the total monthly income
of the claimant at Rs.8,000/- and the permanent disability is
considered to be 40%. Mere proof of these two facts would
not be enough to award compensation on all the counts as
has been granted by the Tribunal. The mode and manner in
which the compensation is awarded for permanent disability
has also not been discussed in the judgment. The judgment
suffers from total non application of mind to the relevant
principles of law on the basis of which the compensation is to
4 fa237.04.odt
be awarded or the damages are to be assessed. The
guidelines are laid down by the Apex Court in the case of
Rajkumar vrs. Ajay Kumar and another reported in 2011 (1)
SCC 343, and the Court has to follow the said guidelines to
award the compensation under the different heads. There
has also to be evidence in support of all such claims for
award of compensation. The judgment should reflect the
basis for such award. The judgment and order passed by the
Tribunal cannot, therefore, be sustained and it will have to be
set aside with an order of remand.
5] In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The
judgment and order dated 07.11.2003 passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur, in Claim Petition No. 439
of 2001 is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is
remitted back to the Tribunal to decide it in accordance with
law keeping in view the observations made by this Court.
The parties to appear before the Tribunal on 18th April, 2016.
R & P, if received, be sent back to the Tribunal. No order as
to costs.
6] It is informed that the appellant Insurance
5 fa237.04.odt
Company has deposited an amount of Rs.4,40,954/- in the
Civil Court Deposit vide C.C.D.R. No. 0379, dated
10.05.2004. This Court has permitted the claimant by an
order dated 13.06.2005 to withdraw 50% of the amount so
deposited upon furnishing solvent surety to the satisfaction of
the Tribunal. Probably this amount must have been
withdrawn and the balance amount must have been lying in
Fixed Deposit with the Tribunal. The surety furnished by the
claimant shall continue to operate pending the decision of the
Tribunal and the Tribunal shall pass appropriate orders in
respect of the amount lying in deposit, as also about the
solvent surety furnished by the claimant in accordance with
its final decision in the matter.
JUDGE
Rvjalit
