Ramesh Manoharrao Bote vs Popat Dattu Jagtap And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 8147 Bom

                                            1
                                                                         305.21FA

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                               FIRST APPEAL NO.305 OF 2021

          1.       Ramesh s/o. Manoharrao Bote
                   Age: 33 years, Occu. Agri.
                   R/o. Upala (T) At present Shirsav,
                   Tq. Paranda, Dist.Osmanabad.       .. APPELLANT
                                                      [Orig.Claimant]
                         VERSUS

          1.       Popat s/o. Dattu Jagtap
                   Age: Major, Occu.Agriculture,
                   R/o. Kurdu Tq.Madha, Dist.Solapur
                   Owner of Tractor No.MH-45/F-3948

          2.   The Manager,
               United India Insurance Co.Ltd.
               Shivaji Chowk, above Axis Bank,
               2nd Floor, Kings Corner,
               Osmanabad Tq.Osmanabad,
               Dist. Osmanabad.                     ..RESPONDENTS
                                      ...
          Mr.V.S.Undre, Advocate for the appellant.
          Mr.Swapnil S. Rathi, Advocate for respondent nos.1 and 2.
                                      ...
                            CORAM : S.G.DIGE, J.
                            Reserved on     : 15.07.2022
                             Pronounced on : 22.08.2022

          JUDGMENT :

1] Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and

order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

Bhoom. The appellant - original claimant has preferred this

appeal for enhancement of compensation.

305.21FA

Brief facts of the case are as under:

2] On 31st March, 2012, appellant had been to

Barshi for weekly bazar. After completing his work, the

appellant and his friend namely Pruthviraj were proceeding

to their village Uplai (T) on motorcycle bearing No.MH-13/

AV-9457. Pruthviraj was driving the said motorcycle. When

they reached on Barshi-Uplai road, it was about 7.15 p.m.

At that time, one tractor bearing No. MH-45/F-3948 came

from the opposite side, in high speed. Pruthviraj took

motorcycle on the Kacha / rough road. However, driver of

the said tractor could not control it. The said tractor dashed

motorcycle. Due to dash, appellant and Pruthviraj fell down

on the road and sustained multiple grievous injuries. The

complaint was filed against the Tractor driver for rash and

negligent driving.

3] The appellant filed claim petition before the

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhoom [for short

'Tribunal'] for getting compensation. The Tribunal has

awarded the compensation of Rs.1,64,875/-. Against the

305.21FA

said Judgment and order, this appeal is for enhancement of

amount.

4] The learned counsel for the appellant has raised

mainly two issues [i] multiplier is not applied by the

Tribunal while calculating the compensation and [ii]

disability of the injured is not properly considered.

5] It is the contention of the learned counsel for

the respondents that the appellants failed to prove disability

before the Court by proper evidence. Hence, the disability of

20% considered by the Tribunal is proper. The Tribunal has

considered all the aspects and has granted compensation.

Accordingly, the order passed by the Tribunal is just and

valid.

6] I have heard both the learned counsel. Perused

the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal. It is the

contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that

while calculating the compensation the Tribunal has not

applied the multiplier. It appears from the record that at

305.21FA

the time of accident, the appellant was 30 years old. The

Tribunal has not applied multiplier while calculating

compensation. Considering the age of the appellant and as

per the law laid down in the case of Sarla Verma & others

Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & another reported in

[2009] 6 SCC 121 the multiplier of 17 is applicable to the

appellant. The Tribunal has considered monthly income of

the appellant of Rs.5,000/-. It is not disputed by appellant.

7] In respect of issue of disability of the injured, it

is the contention of the appellant that the Medical Officer

has issued certificate of 40% permanent disability.

However, the Tribunal has considered only 20% disability.

From the evidence of Doctor - PW2 Ganesh

Patil it reveals that the appellant has suffered 40%

permanent disability. It appears from the record that the

appellant in his evidence has stated that he was operated

and screw was installed in his thigh after operation, but the

disability certificate issued by other Doctor, who has not

treated him or operated him. Doctor, who has issued

305.21FA

disability, has treated the appellant as OPD patient, that

too, in the year 2015 whereas accident was occurred in the

year 2012. In my view, disability considered by the Tribunal

is correct.

8] The Tribunal has considered 20% disability but

the Tribunal has not applied multiplier while calculating

compensation. When there is permanent disability then it is

necessary to apply the multiplier. Considering multiplier,

calculation of compensation for which the appellant is

entitled, is as under:-

                               Head                          Compensation

          1]       Monthly income of appellant             Rs.5000/- p.m.
          2]       Percentage of Disability                20%
          3]       Monthly Pecuniary Loss                  Rs.1000/- p.m.
          4]       Yearly loss                             Rs.12000/- p.a.
          5]       Proper Multiplier 17 [Age 30 Years]

Total pecuniary loss comes to Rs.2,04,000.00

Non pecuniary loss :

                   Pains & sufferings                         Rs.30,000/-
                   Travelling charges                         Rs.10,000/-
                   Special Diet                               Rs.10,000/-






                                                                              305.21FA

                   Attendance charges                             Rs.10,000/-
                   Medical Bills                                  Rs.52,875/-


                   Total Entitlement                             Rs.3,16,875/-


          [The Tribunal          has     awarded       the     compensation            of
          Rs.1,64,875/-]


                           Considering    the        above     calculations,         the

appellant is entitled for enhanced compensation of

Rs.1,52,000/-.

10] In view of the above, I pass the following

order :

ORDER

i] The appeal is partly allowed.

ii] The appellant is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.1,52,000/-. The rate of interest is as per Tribunal.

iii] Accordingly, Appeal is disposed of.

[S.G.DIGE] JUDGE DDC