Bombay High Court
Jawahar Hukumchand Pawar vs Kalimuddin Vajiruddin Shaikh And Anr on 6 May, 2024
2024:BHC-AUG:9643
1 fa 2677.16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO.2677 OF 2016
Jawahar s/o Hukumchand Pawar,
Age 50 yrs, Occ. Service,
R/o. R-27/166, Cidco, N-9,
Pratapgad Nagar, Aurangabad. Appellant.
(Orig. claimant)
Versus
1. Kalimuddin S/o. Vajiruddin Shaikh,
age 50 yrs, Occ. Business,
R/o. Owner and Driver,
R/o Bedkaligalli, Khultabad,
Dist. Aurangabad.
2. Divisional Manager,
National Assurance Company Ltd.,
Hajari Building, Station Road,
Aurangabad. Respondents.
.....
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. P. B. Kakade
Respondent No.1 - Served.
Advocate for Respondent 2 : Mr. S.V. Kulkarni
.....
CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
Reserved on : April 18, 2024
Pronounced on : May 06, 2024
JUDGMENT :
-
1. The appellant/original claimant aggrieved by the
assessment of compensation under award dated 28.3.2016 ,
passed by Tribunal, at Aurangabad, in M.A.C.P. No.461 of
2013, filed this appeal u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
claiming enhanced compensation.
2 fa 2677.16.odt
2. Mr. Kakade, learned advocate appearing for the
appellant/claimant submits that the claimant suffered
permanent disablement as a result of injuries suffered in
motor-vehicular accident dated 1.6.2013, caused due to rash
and negligent driving of the offending jeep. He was
hospitalized during the period from 1.6.2013 to 17.6.2013. He
was operated for the injuries on right thigh. He suffered 35%
permanent disablement. However, Tribunal did not asses
compensation towards future loss of earning by applying
multiplier method. He would submit that Award of the
compensation towards non-pecuniary heads is also inadequate
and requires to be modified.
3. In support of his contentions, he places his
reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Raj
Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and another Reported in 2011 (1) ALL
MR 402 (SC), Syed Sadiq and others Vs. Divisional Manager,
United India Insurance Company Limited reported in (2014) 2
Supreme Court Cases 735 and Dadu Prakash Shinde Vs.
BalwanSingh and another reported in 2023 (4)ALL MR 584.
4. Per contra, Mr. S.V. Kulkarni, learned counsel
appearing for respondent no.2-insurer submits that claimant
continued in service even after the accident. There is no
reduction in pay and perks owing to accidental injuries. The
Tribunal has rightly assessed the compensation towards non-
pecuniary losses.
5. In support of his contentions, he relies upon the
judgment in case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs.
3 fa 2677.16.odt
Satish Chandra Sharma and another reported in 2022 ACJ
1211.
6. Having considered the submissions advanced and
on perusal of the record tendered into service, it is not in
dispute that claimant suffered 35% disablement owing to
accidental injuries. However, the claimant continued with
service. Therefore, he has not suffered loss of earning. The
Tribunal declined to grant compensation towards future loss of
earning. However, assessment of compensation is made
towards medical expenses, conveyance charges and
Rs.35,000/- awarded towards permanent disablement.
7. Now, it is settled position of law that permanent
disability is an independent head and compensation needs to
be assessed for that purpose. In this case, Tribunal declined to
assess the compensation applying multiplier method towards
future loss of earning, while restricting award of Rs.35,000/-
only towards permanent disablement. Admittedly, the
claimant was in service as a teacher. He must be suffering lot
of inconvenience because of permanent disability. Looking to
the nature of Job he was doing coupled with nature of
permanent disablement he suffered, Tribunal ought to have
granted him at least Rs.1.00 Lakh on count of permanent
disability apart from the compensation on other heads.
Claimant needs to be compensated independently towards pain
and sufferings. The amount of Rs.35,000/- can be awarded for
that purpose. There is no reason to re-visit the award of
compensation under different heads specified in the impugned
judgment of the Tribunal. Therefore, compensation amount
4 fa 2677.16.odt
needs to be enhanced by Rs.1.00 Lakh. As such the appeal
deserves to be partly allowed. Resultantly, following order is
passed.
ORDER
i. First appeal is partly allowed.
ii. The judgment and award passed by the
M.A.C.T. Aurangabad in M.A.C.P. No.461 of
2013 dated 28.3.2016 is modified.
iii. The respondents nos.1 and 2 shall jointly and
severalty pay total compensation of
Rs.4,36,388/- (Rs. Four Lakh Thirty Six
Thousand, Three hundred and eighty eight
only) to the claimant alongwith interest @
9% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim
petition till it's realization.
iv. Modified award be drawn up accordingly on
payment of deficit court fees, if any.
v. The compensation amount, paid/deposited in
pursuance of the Award of the Tribunal shall
be appropriated.
vi. On deposit of enhanced compensation, it be
released in favour of the claimant.
vii. First appeal is accordingly disposed off.
Pending civil application, if any, also stand
disposed off.
( S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. )
aaa/-(f) ...
