Bombay High Court
Ashish S/O Arvind Shrikhande vs Khetaram S/O Saluram And Others on 4 September, 2024
Author: M. W. Chandwani
Bench: M. W. Chandwani
2024:BHC-NAG:10325
J FA-1956-2019.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
FIRST APPEAL NO.1956 OF 2019
APPELLANT : Ashish S/o. Arvind Shrikhande
(Ori. Claimant) Aged about 35 years, Occ: Nil, R/o At
(On R. A.)
Post Rohidas Colony, Amravati, Tq. &
Dist. Amravati.
..VERSUS..
RESPONDENTS : 1 Khetaram S/o. Saluram,
(Ori. Respondents)
(On R. A.)
Aged about Major, Occu: Driver, R/o.
At Awadi Bhimaji Kamthai Tq.
Gudhamalan & Distt. Barmer,
(Driver of offending Tata Truck Trailor
No.RJ-04-GA-6359)
2 Chenaram S/o. Simartharam,
Aged Major, Occu: Not Known, R/o.
At Awadi Bhimaji Kamthai, Tq.
Gudhamalan & Distt. Barmer,
(Owner of offending Tata Truck Trailor
No.RJ-04-GA-6359)
In view of order dated 3 The Cholamandalam MS Insurance Co.
23.07.2019 passed by this
Court, the amendment Ltd.,
carried out.
Correct address:
Through its Divisional Manager, 22-B,
1st Floor, Amber Apartment, Near
Tilak Nagar Ground, Tilak Nagar, ,
Nagpur, Tq. & Dist. Nagpur
(Insurer of offending Tata Truck
Trailor No.RJ-04-GA-6359)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr S. S. Alaspurkar, Advocate for Appellant.
Ms M. Naik, Advocate for Respondent No.3.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TAMBE
J FA-1956-2019.odt
2
CORAM : M. W. CHANDWANI, J.
DATED : 4th SEPTEMBER, 2024.
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard.
2. Admit.
3. Correctness of the impugned award dated
03.03.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Amravati, has been questioned in the instant appeal by the
original claimant, who suffered injury in a vehicular which
accident occurred on 16.05.2014.
4. The impugned award has been challenged mainly on
the ground of quantum of compensation. The contention is
that though, the appellant - original claimant has examined his
employer namely Nilesh Vijayrao Shrikhande, who deposed
that he was giving a salary of Rs.12,000/- per month to the
appellant, but the Tribunal assessed monthly income of the
appellant at the rate of Rs.4,500/- per month on guess work.
TAMBE
J FA-1956-2019.odt
5. Perusal of the version of Nilesh Shrikhande reveals
that the appellant was doing the work of photography and
mixing in his shop and he used to pay him a salary of
Rs.12,000/- per month. For that purpose, the employer of the
appellant has placed on record the balance sheet of profit and
loss account for three years. It is a matter of record that in the
said vehicular accident, one more person died and the
dependant of the said person filed a claim petition for
compensation. In that case also, this very employer has deposed
that the deceased was working in his shop and he used to pay
him a salary of Rs.12,000/- per month.
6. Perusal of the balance sheets of profit and loss
account for the years 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14 filed
before the Tribunal, wherein, in the profit and loss account for
the year 2013-14, the amount of Rs.2,88,000/- has been shown
as salary. There is nothing on record to suggest that apart from
these two employees, there were no other employees. Rather,
no bifurcation is given in the profit and loss account or no
TAMBE
J FA-1956-2019.odt
lessor account has been produced in that regard. Therefore, the
Tribunal has rightly ignored the evidence deposed by the
employer and assessed the income of the appellant at the rate of
Rs.4,500/- per month. Though, the Tribunal was right in
discarding the evidence of PW-2 - Nilesh Shrikhande, but the
Tribunal erroneously has assessed the income of the appellant
at the rate of Rs.4,500/- per month.
7. Considering the nature of work of photography and
mixing, which was being done by the appellant, which requires
special skill, I think, the Tribunal ought to have assessed the
income of the appellant at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per month.
Therefore, the appeal succeeds.
8. In view thereof, the appellant is entitled for the
following compensation :
1. Monthly notional income of the appellant Rs. 6,000/-
2. Annual Income of the appellant (Rs.6,000/- x 12) Rs. 72,000/-
3. Disability 44% (Rs.72,000/- x 44% = Rs.31,680/-) Rs. 31,680/-
4. Multiplier on disability of 16 as per the judgment of Rs. 5,06,880/-
Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6
SCC 121, applicable for the age group of 31 to 35
TAMBE
J FA-1956-2019.odt
(Rs.31,680/ x 16)
5. Add : Amount towards medical expenses Rs. 8,35,623/-
Total Rs. 13,42,503/-
6. Future Medical Expenses Rs. 50,000/-
7. Pain and suffering Rs. 10,000/-
8. Special Diet Rs. 5,000/-
Total payable compensation to the appellant Rs. 14,07,503/-
9. In the above said terms, the appeal is partly allowed
and para (ii) of the impugned award dated 03.03.2018 is
modified as under :
"The appellant is entitled to get a compensation of
Rs.14,07,503/- inclusive of the amount towards "No Fault
Liability" with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the
date of petition till realization of full amount."
10. Rest of the impugned award of the Tribunal shall
remain intact.
(M. W. CHANDWANI, J.)
Signed by: Mr. Ashish Tambe
TAMBE
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 13/09/2024 17:19:08
