[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Mangalabai Sahebrao Jogdand vs Sachin Shamsundar Birla And Anr on 4 December, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:33531
{1} FA 458 Of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 458 OF 2011
. Mangalabai w/o Sahebrao Jogdand
Age: 46 years, Occu.: Tailoring,
Now NIL, Resident of Shirdshahpur,
Taluka Aundha, District Hingoli. ....Appellant
(original petitioner)
Versus
1) Sachin s/o Shamsundar Birla
Age: 32 years, Occu.: Business,
Resident of Shri Krishna Automobiles,
main road Manwat, Taluka Manwat,
District Parbhani.
2) The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Through its Branch Manager,
Parbhani. .....Respondents
.....
Advocate for Appellant : Ms.A.N.Ansari
Advocate for Respondent no.1 : Mr.Raviraj R. Chandak
Advocate for Respondent no.2 : Mr. Arun G. Kanade
.....
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
RESERVED ON : 03 DECEMBER, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 04 DECEMBER, 2025
JUDGMENT :
-
1. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 02-12-2010,
passed by learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(MACT), Parbhani in MACP No.477 of 2009, original claimant, who
is primarily dissatisfied by the quantum awarded by the learned
Tribunal, has preferred instant appeal.
{2} FA 458 Of 2011
2. In nutshell facts of the case are that, original claimant/present
appellant instituted above referred motor accident claim petition on
the premise that on 02-08-2009, while she was travelling in a auto
rickshaw, Indica Car bearing no.MH22 H-2223 coming from opposite
direction, came to the wrong side and gave dash to auto rickshaw
occupied by claimant. Due to the accident, she suffered fracture
injuries and was required to be admitted and treated from
03-08-2009 to 29-08-2009 and was required to spend for treatment
and medical expenses.
Learned Tribunal, after considering the case contested by
respondent nos.1 and 2, by order dated 02-12-2010, partly allowed
the claim petition directing payment of Rs.1,55,000/- with 6% rate of
interest.
The above judgment and order is now taken exception to by
original claimant on various grounds raised in the appeal memo.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that, apparently
it was proved before learned Tribunal that claimant was incumbent
of auto rickshaw and the same was given dash by Indica car. That,
the learned Tribunal gave reasoned order holding that there was
rashness and negligence on the part of driver of Indica car and
{3} FA 458 Of 2011
thereby further held that claimant has suffered injuries and thus, was
entitle for compensation. Learned Counsel further pointed out that
injured claimant was doing tailoring work and earning Rs.4,000/- per
month, however, learned Tribunal considered only Rs.3,000/- per
month as notional income and also did not consider her exact age
and accordingly, not applied relevant multiplier while computing the
compensation.
4. Learned Counsel would further point out that, claimant also
established injuries, treatment and medical expenses as well as
disability by examining medical expert, however, even the same has
not been correctly appreciated and according to learned counsel, in
spite of evidence, learned Tribunal considered only 20% disability
and even did not grant entire medical expenses incurred by her.
Hence, learned Counsel urges to interfere, set aside the Judgment
and order of learned Tribunal and enhance the compensation.
5. The above contentions are strongly opposed by learned counsel
for respondent no.2/Insurance company, who apart from justifying
the findings and conclusion of learned Tribunal, would submit that
there was admittedly collision between two vehicles. That, learned
Tribunal did not consider contributory negligence of auto rickshaw
{4} FA 458 Of 2011
driver. As regards to disability and medical expenses are concerned,
learned Counsel took this court through observations of learned
Tribunal in paragraph 8 and 9 and took this Court through admission
given by claimant herself. He pointed out that, medical bills are not
proved and are rather found to be fabricated with sole intention to
seek more compensation. Therefore, for above reasons, he justifies
and supports the impugned judgment and prays to dismiss the appeal
for want of merits.
6. Perused the record. On the strength of evidence of claimant,
FIR, spot panchanama and injury certificate, learned Tribunal has
held that claimant is victim of road traffic accident. Learned Tribunal
has also perused the evidence as regards to medical treatment and
injuries are concerned. Learned Tribunal, in paragraph 9, has taken
into account the medical bills placed on record and has also
appreciated the evidence of one Prashant Mundada, who is owner of
medical shop and through him bills at sr. nos.17 to 46 and 50 to 52
are held to be proved. By appreciating evidence of another witness
Dr.Suryakant Deshmukh and on taking into account admission from
him that bills issued by him are not issued serially from the bill book
and they are not consistent as per sequence and date, learned
{5} FA 458 Of 2011
Tribunal has held that as claimant was treated as indoor patient,
there is no question of she paying visiting charges of the doctor.
However, finding of the learned Tribunal that bills produced by
claimant for I.V. Fluids are from private shop, there is duplication of
amount of compensation, is not just and proper. It is common
practice that, even if a patient is admitted, prescriptions are issued to
the patient, who arrange for the medicines and therefore, evidence of
Dr.Deshmukh ought not to have been doubted. Therefore, the
medical bills placed on record and which are got proved by
examining medical shop owner, are required to be considered.
7. Further even the Doctor, who issued disability certificate, was
examined at exh.44. However, finding of learned Tribunal that said
Doctor did not obtain x-rays and has relied only on information of
patient regarding fracture, is also in the considered opinion of this
Court is incorrect. When the doctor himself had stepped in witness
box and assessed disability, there was no reason to discard his
evidence for want of x-ray examination. Similarly, when disability
has been shown to be to the extent of 42%, the same also ought not
to have been brought down to 20% without assigning plausible
reason.
{6} FA 458 Of 2011
Therefore, as submitted, such approach of Tribunal, in case of
such nature, was too technical and therefore, interference is required
to be called for.
8. In view of above discussion, the age of the claimant i.e. 45
years as stated by her needs to be considered and relevant multiplier
i.e. 14 is applicable. Apart from this, income of Rs.4,000/- per month
as stated by her, disability i.e. 42% as stated by the medical expert
and all medical bills incurred for treatment are required to be
considered.
Accordingly, the claimant is entitle for the enhanced
compensation as calculated below :
Income per month = Rs.4,000
Income per annum Rs.4,000 x 12 = Rs.48,000
Disability 42% i.e. 42% of Rs.48,000 = Rs.20,160
Age is 45 years, therefore, multiplier 14 is applicable 2,82,240
Future loss of earning = Rs.20,160 x 14
Amount towards all medical bills 92,000
Amount towards mental agony 5,000
Amount towards loss of amenities in life 10,000
Total 3,89,240
Less - Amount of compensation granted by Tribunal 1,55,000
Total amount of enhanced compensation 2,34,240
9. In view of above, following order is passed.
{7} FA 458 Of 2011
ORDER
(I) The Judgment and Order dated 02-12-2010, passed
by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Parbhani, is modified.
(II) Respondent no.2/Insurance Company is directed to
pay enhanced compensation of Rs.2,34,240/- to claimant
within 12 weeks from today along with interest @ 6% per
annum from the date of registration of claim petition till its
realization.
(III) Modified award be prepared accordingly.
(IV) The claimant shall pay court fees, if any, on the
enhanced amount of compensation, as per Rules.
(V) The claimant/appellant shall not be entitled to the
interest part on the enhanced amount for the delayed
period.
(VI) On deposit of the amount by Insurance Company,
appellant/claimant is permitted to withdraw the same.
(VII) The Appeal is disposed of in above terms.
( ABHAY S. WAGHWASE )
JUDGE
SPT
