Bombay High Court
Dr Yadav Jangalaji Raut vs Maharashtra State Road Transport ... on 21 March, 2016
Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande
fa129.04.J.odt 1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO.129 OF 2004
Dr. Yadav Jangalaji Raut,
Aged about 39 years,
R/o Pawani, Tq. Warud,
District Amravati. ....... APPELLANT
...V E R S U S...
1] Maharashtra State Road
Transport Corporation,
through its Divisional
Manager, Nagpur.
2] Dineshchandra Nanilal Wadher,
Aged about 56 years,
Occ: Driver,
R/o Gorewada Talav,
Back Side of Water Filter,
N.K.S. Depot Nagpur,
Tq. & Dist. Nagpur. ....... RESPONDENTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri P.S. Patil, Advocate for Appellant.
Shri R.S. Charape, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: R.K. DESHPANDE, J.
st MARCH, 2016.
DATE: 21
ORAL JUDGMENT
1] In Motor Accident Claim Petition No.51 of 1998 the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal by its judgment and order dated 28.08.2003
awarded the compensation at the rate of 1,44,000/- inclusive of no fault
liability amount along with interest at the 6% per annum from the date
of filing of the petition till its realization. It is the claimant, who is before
fa129.04.J.odt 2/4
this Court claiming further enhancement of compensation.
2] The accident in question occurred on 20.05.1997.
The claimant was rider of Hero Honda motor-cycle bearing registration
No.MFZ 3523, and was proceeding from Pawani to Warud. The another
vehicle i.e. Bus bearing registration No.MH-31 9063 owned by the State
Road Transport Authority coming from the opposite side dashed the
motor-cycle near Dhangiri Maharaj Temple. The claimant suffered injury
in the accident, and therefore, filed claim petition. The schedule of reliefs
claimed in the petition is as under:
i] Loss of earning including future Rs. 2,00,000-00
loss of earning Agricultural loss.
ii] Compensation for permanent
disablement of fracture. Rs. 1,00,000-00
iii] Permanent disablement of eye
sight. Rs. 1,00,000-00
iv] Damages for mental and physical Rs. 1,00,000-00
shock, paid and suffering already
suffered or likely to be suffered
in future.
v] Loss of amenities and future
enjoyment of life. Rs. 50,000-00
vi] Medical expenses including future Rs. 1,00,000-00
Medical expenses and special diet
Convenience and traveling expenses
For visiting hospital and coming to
Home and expenses for attendant.
fa129.04.J.odt 3/4
vii] Damages for loss of expectation Rs. 50,000-00
viii] Inconvenience, hardship, dos-comfort Rs. 50,000-00
frustration and mental stress of life.
ix] Loss of damages of Motor cycle Rs. 10,000-00
Total loss of petitioner Rs. 7,60,000-00
--------------------------
3] The Tribunal determined the monthly income of the
claimant at Rs.3000/ as against the claim of Rs.5000/- and awarded the
compensation under different heads as under:
Sr. No. Particulars Amount
1. For permanent disability of 40% of shorting of 40,000=00
leg
2. For loss of eye sight 40% 40,000=00
3. Medical expenses 35,000=00
4. Ambulance and traveling charges 7,000=00
5. Loss of four years income 12,000=00
6. Pain and suffering 10,000=00
Total 1,44,000=00
4] With the assistance of the learned counsels appearing for the
parties, I have gone through the finding recorded by the Tribunal, and
I do not find any basis for awarding Rs.40,000/- each on account of
permanent disability of shorting of leg, and loss of eye sight. The manner
of arriving the figure of Rs.40,000/- is not reflected in the judgment.
In the absence of any other evidence, except the oral statement of the
fa129.04.J.odt 4/4
claimant, the Tribunal has determined the income of the claimant at the
rate of Rs.3000/- as against the claim of Rs.5000/-. The question of loss
of future earning has not been considered. The compensation has to be
awarded by taking into consideration the principles of law laid down by
the Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and others
reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343. This has not been done. In view of this,
the matter will have to be remitted back to the Tribunal to consider the
award of compensation in accordance with the decision of the Apex
Court.
5] In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and
order dated 28.08.2003 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in
M.A.C.P. No.51 of 1998, is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is
remitted back to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for decision in
accordance with law, keeping in view the observations made by this
Court. Needless to say that this Court has not expressed any opinion on
the merits of the claim, and the Tribunal shall be free to decide the same
in accordance with law. No order as to costs. The parties are directed to
appear before the Tribunal on 18.04.2016. Record and proceedings be
sent back to the Tribunal.
JUDGE
NSN
