Mehrunissa Mohd Farhat Deshmukh vs Hazrat Dastagir Kazi And Others
2017 Latest Caselaw 5132 Bom

                                     1                         FA 629/2004

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                        FIRST APPEAL NO.629 OF 2004

  1.       Mehrunissa w/o. Mohd.
           Farhat Deshmukh,
           Age: 47 years, Occu. H.H.
           R/o. Khori Galli, Latur,
           Tq. & Dist. Latur                =    APPELLANT
                                              (Orig. Claimant)
                   VERSUS

  1.       Hazarat Dastagir Kazi,
           Age: 35 years, Occu. Truck Driver,
           R/o. Akluj, TQ. Malshiras,
           Dist. Solapur,

  2.       The Managing Director Sakhar Maharshi
           Shankarrao Mohite Patil
           Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.
           Shankar Nagar, Akluj, Tq. Malshiras

  3.       The United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
           Through it's Branch Manager,
           Main road, Latur

  4.       Jiya Ahmed Khan s/o. Gulamali Khan
           Age: 35 years, Occu.: Business
           R/o. Paithan Road, Aurangabad
           R/o. Silk Mills Compound

  5.       The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
           Chandra Nagar, Latur
                                        =            RESPONDENTS 
                               -----
  Mr. R.B. Deshmukh, Advocate for Appellant;
  Mr.   D.A.   Madke,   Adv.   h/f.   Mr.S.Y.   Mahajan,   Adv.for 
  Respondent No.4
  Mr.   R.K.   Jahagirdar   and   D.H.   Jahagirdar   Adv.for 
  Respondent No. 1 & 2.
  Mr.   A.O.   Soman,   Adv.   h/f.   Mr.   D.V.   Soman,   Adv.for 
  Respondent No.3;
  Mr. Dhananjay Deshpande, Adv.for Respondent No.5
                                -----




::: Uploaded on - 29/07/2017               ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 01:52:40 :::
                                          2                           FA 629/2004

                               CORAM :  P.R.BORA, J.

DATE :

27 th

July,2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT:

1) Heard. Dissatisfied with the amount of

compensation as awarded by the Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal, Latur (hereinafter referred to

as the Tribunal) in MACP No.212/2001, the

appellant has preferred the present appeal

seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation

as awarded by the Tribunal.

2) The appellant had filed the aforesaid

claim petition claiming compensation of

Rs.2,00,000/- on account of the injuries caused

to her and resultant permanent disability

incurred by her out of the said injuries in a

vehicular accident happened on 12th April, 1999

having involvement of a tanker bearing

Registration No.MH-13-G-178 and Tata Sierra jeep

bearing registration No.MH-01-R-4847. The

alleged accident had happened when the appellant

was travelling in a Tata Sierra jeep on Pune -

3 FA 629/2004

Solapur road and was dashed by the aforesaid

tanker.

3) It was the contention of the appellant

that in the accident so happened, she received

several severe injuries and also incurred a

pelvis fracture and was required to be

hospitalized for the period of more than a month.

It was also contention of the appellant that, she

was required to spend huge amount on her medical

treatment. The appellant had, therefore, claimed

compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the owner and

insurer of the tanker as well as owner and

insurer of the Tata Sierra jeep. The appellant

had placed on record the permanent disability

certificate and the medical papers pertaining to

her treatment along with hospital and medicine

bills.

4) The Tribunal, after having assessed the

oral and documentary evidence brought before it,

awarded compensation of Rs.45,000/- inclusive of

4 FA 629/2004

compensation under NFL to the appellant.

Aggrieved by the amount of compensation so

awarded, the appellant has preferred the present

appeal seeking enhancement in the amount of

compensation.

5) Learned Counsel appearing for the

appellant, submitted that the Tribunal has

manifestly erred in appreciating the evidence on

record and more particularly the medical evidence

brought on record. The learned Counsel submitted

that some unwarranted inferences are drawn by the

Tribunal, which have resulted in causing

injustice to the appellant. The learned Counsel

submitted that, relying on the noting on the

Discharge Summary, the Tribunal has recorded a

finding that in fact there was no surgery

conducted and as such, has also raised certain

doubts as about the evidence placed on record by

the appellant. The learned Counsel submitted

that the appellant had plainly placed on record

each and every record which was in her possession

5 FA 629/2004

as about her treatment and there was no intention

to make any false claim by the appellant. The

learned Counsel submitted that though in the

Discharge Summary, it may not have been shown

that she has undergone the surgery, but the

appellant was certainly required to take

treatment for fracture of pelvis and for that,

sumptuous amount was spent by her. The learned

Counsel submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly

refused the claim of the appellant in that

regard. The learned Counsel further submitted

that the Tribunal has also not considered that

because of the injuries caused to the appellant

and the permanent disability incurred by her

because of the said injuries, for whole of her

remaining life, she may not be able to work with

the same vigor as she was working in the past and

she may also not be able to enjoy the amenities

of life like a normal person. The learned Counsel

submitted that considering all these aspects, the

compensation as has been awarded of Rs.45,000/-

is wholly unjust and inadequate and deserves to

6 FA 629/2004

be adequately enhanced.

6) Learned Counsel appearing for the

insurance company has supported the impugned

judgment and award. The learned Counsel

submitted that the observations made by the

Tribunal are based on the documents on record.

The learned Counsel submitted that the Discharge

Summary clearly depicts that no surgery was

carried out on the appellant. The learned

Counsel submitted that in such circumstances, the

Tribunal has rightly observed that the medical

bills which are produced on record, wherein

operation charges are also shown, are doubtful.

The learned Counsel submitted that the best

course for the appellant was to examine the

concerned doctor or the concerned person, who has

issued the receipts in that regard. In absence

of any such evidence on record, the learned

Counsel submitted that the Tribunal has rightly

rejected the claim of the appellant in that

regard. The learned Counsel submitted that even

7 FA 629/2004

as about the permanent disability, there was no

sufficient evidence on record and the appellant

has failed in proving that any permanent loss was

caused to her because of the injuries sustained

to her. The learned Counsel submitted that the

Tribunal has awarded a just and fair compensation

to the appellant and no interference is required

in the amount of compensation so awarded by the

Tribunal.

7) I have carefully considered the

submissions advanced by the learned counsel

appearing for the appellant and the leaned

counsel for the respondent - insurance company. I

have also perused the impugned Judgment and

Award; the evidence and the documents filed on

record. I need not to make any more discussion

as about the observations made by the Tribunal.

However, there appears substance in the

submissions made by the learned counsel for the

appellant that though in the Discharge Card,

there is the remark showing that there was no

8 FA 629/2004

surgery conducted, it cannot be outrightly

rejected that the appellant was treated for

fracture. The documents on record show that the

appellant was required to be in the hospital for

the period of more than a month. The charges

shown as operation charges may be on account of

treatment of fracture. Merely because the

concerned Medical Officer was not examined, the

evidence as placed on record and the document

placed on record by the appellant, cannot be

outrightly rejected and no distrust can be shown

to the evidence produced on record by the

appellant.

8) The permanent disability certificate,

which has been placed on record, however, does

not contain the necessary particulars as about

the nature of the permanent disablement. The

evidence on record also fall short in drawing any

inference as about the actual loss, which may be

suffered by the appellant because of the

permanent disablement incurred by her in her

9 FA 629/2004

working capacity.

9) Nevertheless, after considering the

entire evidence on record, it appears to me that

some more compensation was required to be awarded

to the appellant considering the nature of

injuries caused to the appellant and the period

of treatment undergone by her and having regard

to the fact that because of the injuries caused

to her, the appellant may not be able to enjoy

the amenities of life in future as a normal

person. Though some more evidence could have

been adduced by the appellant, even on the

available evidence on record, the inferences

which emerge necessitate the enhancement in the

amount of compensation as has been awarded by the

Tribunal. I quantify the said amount to the tune

of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty five thousand) and

hold the appellant entitled for the compensation

of Rs.70,000/- (Rupees seventy thousand) in

total, which according to me, will be the just

and fair compensation to be awarded to the

10 FA 629/2004

appellant in the facts of the case. The impugned

award be accordingly modified. The appellant

shall be entitled to receive the interest on the

enhanced amount of compensation at the rate as

has been awarded by the Tribunal from the date of

the claim petition till its realization.

10) The appeal stands disposed of in

aforesaid terms. Pending civil application, if

any, stands disposed of.

(P.R.BORA) JUDGE

bdv/