Surekha W/O Gangadhar Gharat vs Chandraprakash S/O Ganeshdas ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 2607 Bom

  fa598.06.J.odt                                                                                                    1/3



            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

                              FIRST APPEAL NO.598 OF 2006

            Surekha w/o Gangadhar Gharat,
            Aged about 35 years, Occ: Labour,
            Resident of Kalmeshwar,
            District Nagpur (On R.A.)                                         ....... APPELLANT

                                             ...V E R S U S...

 1]         Chandraprakash s/o Ganeshdas Kewalramani,
            Near Dayanand Kanya Shala,
            Resident of 297, Jaripatka, Nagpur
            (Original respondent No.1) (On R.A.).

 2]       New India Assurance Company,
          Branch No.160202, Shri Ganesh Chamber,
           Laxminagar Chowk, Nagpur
          (Original respondent No.2)(On R.A.)....... RESPONDENTS
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          None for parties.
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       CORAM:  B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. 

                       DATE:      23 rd
                                        MAY, 2017.


 ORAL JUDGMENT



 1]                    The   matter   was   called   out   yesterday   in   summer

vacation and nobody appeared for parties. Today, there is nobody

for appellant, respondent No.1 or respondent No.2-Insurance

Company.

   fa598.06.J.odt                                                                                                    2/3

 2]                    As  informed  by  Registry  old  matters to be   listed  in

vacation for final hearing were duly notified in advance and only

such matters in which Advocate did not file any objection are

placed for final hearing.

3] Present first appeal is under Section 173 of Motor

Vehicles Act. Appellant filed Claim Petition No.422 of 2000 under

Section 166 thereof claiming compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- for

accident suffered by her on 17.03.2000. She claimed that she was

serving with private employer i.e. Noble Company, M.I.D.C.,

Kalmeshwar and was earning Rs.2400/- per month. In addition,

she stated that she spent Rs.20000/- on her treatment.

Respondent No.1 driver of offending vehicle did not appear before

M.A.C.T. and matter proceeded ex-parte against him.

4] M.A.C.T. has found that no material was produced on

record to show that quantum of amount paid by applicant-victim,

therefore, it declined to grant any compensation on that account.

In so far as private employment or wages therefor are concerned,

again there was no evidence produced and there was nothing to

show that she lost her employment. In this situation, the M.A.C.T.

has in the impugned judgment dated 26.04.2006 presumed her

fa598.06.J.odt 3/3

income to be Rs.2000/- per month for doing labour work.

5] She produced on record certificates at Exh.27 and 28.

Exh.27 mentions permanent disability to the extent of 20% of

right leg. Exh.28 is certificate dated 04.06.2001 wherein the

disability has been mentioned as 30%. That disability, however,

has not been co-related by appellant with her loss of working

capacity. The Trial Court, in that situation, granted amount of

Rs.20,000/- for incurring permanent disability and for pains and

suffering she was given amount of Rs.8000/-. Her total stay in

Government Medical Hospital was from 18.03.2000 to 11.04.2000

and M.A.C.T. has found that she was treated free of costs.

6] Even in claim petition, computation of damages at

Rs.3,50,000/- has not been explained.

7] Taking overall view of the matter, the appeal is

dismissed. Rule discharged. No costs.

JUDGE

NSN