Bombay High Court
Hirachand Bhagwan Jain vs Vasant Bhaurao Shinde & Ors on 13 April, 2017
Bench: V.K. Jadhav
1
958 FIRST APPEAL 31 OF 2002.odt
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 31 OF 2002
Hirachand s/o Bhagwan Jain,
Age 33 years, Occ : Business,
Resident of Aurad Shahajani,
Taluka Nilanga, District Latur. ... APPELLANT
V E R S U S
1- Vasant s/o Bhaurao Shinde,
Age major, Occ: Driver,
Resident of Kalmugali, Taluka
Nilanga, District : Latur.
2- The Divisional Manager,
M.S.R.T.C., Latur,
(Bus No.MH-20-D-0-803)
Nilanga to Bombay.
3- Smt. Aruna w/o Ashokkumar Yerte, Appeal dismissed as
Occupation : Business and household, against R. No.3 vide
Resident of Aurad-Shahajani, R's order dated 17-2-04.
Taluka Nilanga, District : Latur.
4- The Manager,
National Insurance Co., Latur,
Taluka and District Latur. ... RESPONDENTS
...
Mr. N. B. Patil Raiwadilkar, Advocate for Appellant.
Mrs. Ranjana D. Reddy, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
Mr. D. V. Soman, Advocate for Respondent No.3.
...
CORAM : V. K. JADHAV, J.
DATE : 13th April, 2017.
958 FIRST APPEAL 31 OF 2002.odt
ORAL JUDGMENT:
. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by
the learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Latur
dated 8th November, 1996 in MACP No.140 of 1993, the original
Claimant has preferred this appeal to the extent of quantum.
2 Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows:
a) On 9th October, 1992, the Claimant had started his
journey in a jeep bearing registration No.MXV-6433
from Latur Shahajani. On way, near the bridge of
village Peth at bout 06:30 pm, the said jeep collided
with one S.T. Bus bearing registration No.MH.20-D-
O-803 coming from opposite side. In consequence
of which, Claimant has sustained injuries, which
resulted into permanent disablement. The Claimant
has taken the treatment in hospital and incurred the
medical expenses. The Claimant thus, approached
to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by filing
MACP No.140 of 1993 for grant of compensation of
958 FIRST APPEAL 31 OF 2002.odt
Rs.50,000/- under the various heads.
b) The Respondent / MSRTC has strongly resisted the
claim on the ground that the said accident had
taken place on account of rash and negligent
driving on the part of the driver of jeep.
c) Respondent No.3 / owner of the jeep has strongly
resisted the claim on the ground that the driver of
S.T. Bus was responsible for the accident and he
had driven the vehicle S.T. Bus in rash and
negligent manner.
d) Respondent No.4 / Insurer has also resisted the
claim by filing the written statement. It has been
contended that the jeep was on extremely left side
of the road and the bus had come on the wrong
side and given dash to the jeep. It has also been
contended that Respondent No.3 / owner had
committed breach of the conditions of insurance
policy and therefore, the Respondent No.4 / Insurer
is not liable to pay the compensation.
958 FIRST APPEAL 31 OF 2002.odt
e) The Claimant has adduced oral and documentary
evidence in support of his contentions. However,
the Respondents have not adduced any evidence.
f) The learned Member of the Tribunal after
considering the evidence on record held that the
drivers of both the vehicles are responsible for the
accident and it is a case of composite negligence.
The Tribunal has thus, directed the Respondents to
pay jointly and severally an amount of Rs.5,000/-
with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the
date of petition till realization of the entire amount.
The Tribunal has also fixed the intere-se liability
between the Respondents and further directed that
Respondent / MSRTC is liable to pay the
compensation to the extent of 70% and the
Respondents / jeep owner and its Insurer liable to
pay the compensation to the extent of 30%. Being
aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the
original Claimant has preferred this appeal.
958 FIRST APPEAL 31 OF 2002.odt
3 It appears from the appeal memo that the Appellant has
restricted his appeal to the extent of additional compensation of
Rs.10,000/-. The Appellant / Claimant has mainly relied upon the
disability certificate Exhibit - 40 wherein the percentage of permanent
disablement has been specified. It has been certified in the said
permanent disablement certificate Exhibit - 40 that the Claimant has
sustained 15% of disablement. However, the Tribunal has not
considered the same and awarded very meager amount of
compensation.
4. The Respondent / MSRTC and Respondent / Insurer submits
that the said disablement certificate Exhibit - 40 has been issued in
the year 1996 though the accident had taken place in the year 1992.
The learned counsel submits that the Appellant / Claimant has
sustained the simple injury in the accident and in the so-called
disablement certificate Exhibit - 40, only disfiguration of face has
been mentioned. It is not clear from the said certificate Exhibit - 40
as to how the Claimant has sustained the permanent disablement to
the extent of 15%. So far as disfiguration of the face as stated in the
permanent disablement certificate Exhibit - 40 is concerned, there is
958 FIRST APPEAL 31 OF 2002.odt
no question of loss of future income and as such, the Tribunal has
awarded just and reasonable compensation. No interference is
required.
5 The learned counsel for Respondents submits that the
Tribunal has awarded exorbitant rate of interest and he same should
be 6% per annum instead of 12% per annum as awarded by the
Tribunal.
6 On careful perusal of the evidence and the judgment and
award passed by the Tribunal, it appears that the Claimant has placed
on record MLC Exhibit - 39 and permanent disablement certificate
Exhibit - 40, which has been issued by the Government hospital.
Though the Tribunal after considering the said permanent
disablement, which is in the form of disfiguration of face, rightly held
that there is no loss in the future income, however, awarded a very
meager amount of compensation for the said disablement of
disfiguration of face sustained by the Claimant. Admittedly, after the
accident, the Claimant was hospitalized for some period. The
Claimant has incurred medical expenses and also expenses on
account of conveyance, special diet etc. Since the Appellant /
958 FIRST APPEAL 31 OF 2002.odt
Claimant has restricted his claim in the appeal to the extent of
additional Rs.10,000/-, in my considered opinion, by considering the
injuries sustained by the Appellant / Claimant vide medico legal
certificate Exhibit - 39 and the resultant permanent disablement as
per certificate Exhibit - 40, the Claimant is entitled for the total
amount of Rs.15,000/- inclusive of the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal. Hence, the following order:
O R D E R
I. The appeal, is hereby partly allowed. No costs.
II. The judgment and award passed by the learned
Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Latur dated 8th November, 1996 in MACP No.140 of
1993, is hereby modified in the following manner:
"Respondent Nos.1 to 4 do pay jointly and
severally to the Claimant Rs.15,000/-
(Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) with
proportionate costs and interest at the rate
of 6% per annum from the date of petition
till realization of the entire amount."
III. Rest of the judgment and award stands confirmed.
958 FIRST APPEAL 31 OF 2002.odt
IV. Award be drawn up as per the above modification.
V. Needless to say that if any amount is deposited as
per the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal,
the same shall be the part of the award after
modification.
VI. Appeal is accordingly disposed of.
[ V. K. JADHAV, J. ]
ndm
