Bombay High Court
Baba Kisan Admane vs Maharashtra State Road Tr. ... on 3 May, 2017
Bench: V.K. Jadhav
fa1485.04
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1485 OF 2004
Baba s/o Kisan Admane
Age 30 years, Occ. Nil,
R/o. Awasgaon, Taluka Kajij,
District Beed ...Appellant
versus
1) Maharashtra State Road Transport
Corporation, through Divisional
Controller, MSRTC, Osmanabad
District Osmanabad
2) Ravindra Jalindar Nalawade
Age 32 years, Occ. Driver
R/o. Washi, Tq. Bhoom,
District Osmanabad (deleted) ...Respondents
.....
Mr. S.G. Chapalgaonkar, advocate for the appellant-claimant
Mr. A.B. Dhongde, advocate for respondent No.1
.....
CORAM : V. K. JADHAV, J.
DATED : 3rd MAY, 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT:-
1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 2.9.2004,
passed by the learned Member, M.A.C.T. Ambajogai, in M.A.C.P.
No. 93 of 2002, the original claimant has preferred this appeal in
respect of quantum of compensation.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant has submitted that
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2017 00:25:53 :::
fa1485.04
-2-
the Tribunal has not considered the income of the appellant-claimant
and even though it is personal injury claim, deducted 1/3 rd of the
amount from his income towards his personal and living expenses.
The learned Member of the Tribunal has also erroneously applied the
multiplier 15 instead of 17. The injuries sustained by the appellant-
claimant resulted into amputation of two toes of his left foot and the
extent of disability as worked out by the Orthopedician vide certificate
at Exh.35, is 40%. The Tribunal has also awarded very meager
amount under non pecuniary heads, such as pains and sufferings
etc. The Tribunal has also awarded meager amount for attendant
and special diet charges etc.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent M.S.R.T.C. submits that
the Tribunal has awarded just and reasonable compensation and no
interference is required in the impugned judgment and award.
4. On perusal of evidence and the judgment and award passed
by the Tribunal, it appears that after the accident, the appellant-
claimant was admitted in S.R.T.R. Hospital at Ambajogai for two
months as indoor patient and thereafter for two months he remained
as outdoor patient for follow up treatment. The appellant-claimant
has deposed that due to amputation of his left foot his left leg is weak
and he cannot walk without help of crutches. He has to use two
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2017 00:25:53 :::
fa1485.04
-3-
crutches at a time. It is not disputed that the appellant/claimant was
working as labour prior to the accident. He cannot do any labour
work and even cannot seat and get up. According to him, even with
the help of crutches, he can walk with difficulties. Though the
Tribunal has considered the said disablement affecting his earning
capacity to the extent of 100%, the Tribunal erroneously deducted
1/3rd amount from his income towards his personal and living
expenses. Learned Member of the Tribunal has also applied
multiplier 15 instead of 17 though it has come on record that the
appellant-claimant was 30 years of age at the time of accident.
5. In view of above, re-determination of compensation as worked
out by the Tribunal is necessary. Furthermore, the Tribunal has
awarded only Rs.15,000/- for pains and sufferings. In the facts of the
case, it would be just and proper if the amount of Rs.40,000/- is
awarded towards pains and sufferings. The appellant/claimant is
also entitled for amount of Rs.10,000/- for attendance charges
instead of Rs.3000/-, as awarded by the Tribunal. The claimant is
also entitled for amount of Rs.6000/- for loss of actual income.
Though, the Tribunal has considered the loss of future income,
however, erroneously considered the loss of earning capacity to the
extent of percentage of disablement. The said disablement has
affected his earning capacity to the extent of 100%. The
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2017 00:25:53 :::
fa1485.04
-4-
appellant/claimant would not be able to do any work when even
walking with help of crutches is difficult for him.
6. Thus, the breakup of compensation under various heads, which
can be broadly categorized is as under:-
I) Loss of future income/dependency Rs.3,06,000.00
(Rs.1500x12x17)
(As against Rs. 1,80,000/- as awarded
by the Tribunal)
II) Loss of actual income Rs. 06,000.00
(Tribunal has not awarded any amount)
III) Medical expenses Rs. 10,000.00
(As awarded by the Tribunal)
IV) Attendant charges Rs. 10,000.00
(As against Rs.3000/- as awarded
by the Tribunal)
V) Pains ans sufferings Rs. 40,000.00
(As against Rs.15000/- as awarded
by the Tribunal)
VI) Loss of amenities in future life Rs. 5,000.00
(As awarded by the Tribunal)
--------------------
Total Rs.3,77,000.00
============
The appellant-claimant is entitled for compensation of
Rs.3,77,000/- (Rupees Three lacs seventy seven thousand) as worked
out herein-above.
7. In view of the above, the impugned judgment and award requires
::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2017 00:25:53 :::
fa1485.04
-5-
modification. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order:-
ORDER
I. The first appeal is hereby partly allowed with proportionate
costs.
II. The judgment and award dated 2.9.2004 passed by the
learned Member, M.A.C.T. Ambajogai in M.A.C.P. 93 of 2002
is hereby modified in the following manner:-
"The respondent do pay an amount of Rs,3,77,000/-, (Rupees
three lacs seventy seven thousand) inclusive of "no fault
liability" amount to the appellant-claimant with interest @ 9%
p.a. from the date of application till realization of entire
amount."
III. Rest of the judgment and award stands confirmed.
IV. The award be drawn up as per the above modification.
V. The appellant shall deposit deficit court fees within a period of
eight weeks from today.
VI. First appeal is disposed of.
VII. Needless to say that if any amount is deposited in this Court
as per the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the
same shall be the part of modified award.
( V. K. JADHAV, J.)
rlj/
