Bombay High Court
The Divisional Manager National ... vs Balasaheb Bhimrao Sulakhe And Others on 10 February, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:3892
(1) 32-fa-1283-2024.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1283 OF 2024
The Divisional Manager,
National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Shubhrai Towers, Datta Chowk,
Opp. Shalimar Talkies, Solapur.
Policy No. 271400311710004107
Validity : 28.03.2018 to 27.03.2019
Insurer of Car No. MH13/CS0091.
Through its Divisional Office
Divisional Manager Hazare chambers
Railway Station Road Aurangabad
District : Aurangabad ..Appellant
Versus
1. Balasaheb S/o Bhimrao Sulakhe
Age 46 years, occu. Agriculture
R/o Wagholi, Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad
2. Rajan S/o Shankkarao JAdhav
Mobile No. 9423067529
Age40 years , occu. Busuness
R/o Flat No. 112, Dharmashil Line,
Oppo. ST stand, Murarji Peth, Solapur
(owner of Car No. MH-13/CS-0091) ..Respondents
(no.1 is orig. Claimant No.2
original respondent no.1)
...
Mr. Sudhir V. Kulkarni, Advocate for Appellant.
Mr. P. S. Chavan, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
Mr. D. R. Bhadekar, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
...
CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
DATED : 10th FEBRUARY, 2025.
JUDGMENT:
-
1. Heard. Admit. Looking to the narrow controversy/limited
issue, heard finally by consent of the parties.
(2) 32-fa-1283-2024.odt
2. The appellant/insurer impugns the award dated 11.12.2023
passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Osmanabad in
M.A.C.P. No.521/2018. (Hereinafter, parties are referred to by
their original status for the sake of convenience and brevity).
3. The respondent/claimant suffered injury in accident dated
07.05.2018. He was traveling on motorcycle bearing Registration
No.MH-25-V-3320. It is contended that insured Car bearing
Registration No.MH-13-CS-0091 gave dash to motorcycle. The car
driver drove car from wrong side in rash and negligent manner
resulting into accident. The accident was reported to police vide
Crime No.142/2018. The offence was registered against Car driver.
The respondent/claimant contends that he suffered permanent
disablement and loss of earning capacity. Prior to the accident he
was earning Rs.2,00,000/- per annum from agriculture, however,
due to permanent disablement his income has been hampered. The
Tribunal after evaluation of the pleadings of the parties and
evidence on record, passed an award of Rs.5,00,000/- alongwith
interest @ 7% per annum in favour of claimant.
4. Mr. Kulkarni, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant
submits that Appeal is filed mainly on two grounds. Firstly,
claimant was rider of motorcycle, documents on record would
depict his negligence in the cause of accident, hence, Tribunal
ought to have applied principals of contributory negligence. He
would further submit that there is no evidence as to the income of
the claimant. The Tribunal erroneously assumed notional earning
@ Rs.10,000/- per month, which is excessive and exorbitant. Mr.
Kulkarni would also point out that claimant could not prove loss of
earning capacity.
(3) 32-fa-1283-2024.odt
5. Per contra, Mr. Chavan, learned Advocate appearing for the
respondents/claimants submits that accident occurred in the year
2018. The respondent has placed on record 7/12 extract indicating
his engagement in agriculture prior to the accident. He invited
attention of this Court to order dated 28.09.2018 issued by
Ministry of Labour and Employment through Chief Labour
Commissioner (C), New Delhi to contend that minimum wages for
semi-skilled worker in the agriculture sector shall not be less than
Rs.333/- per day. As such, justifies assumption of notional income
@ Rs.10,000/- per month. He would further submit that evidence of
doctor clearly shows that claimant has suffered 25% permanent
disablement making him incapable for continuing hard work
required in agricultural operations.
6. Having considered submissions advanced and after perusal of
reasons given in the impugned order, apparently there is no
dispute about accident involving insured car and motorcycle of the
claimant. Immediately after accident, FIR was lodged on
08.05.2018 against driver of offending vehicle. The panchanama
was drawn. It shows that motorcycle suffered extensive damage.
The road at the spot is 20 feet wide. The claimant entered into
witness box and gave details about manner of accident. The charge
sheet has been filed against the car driver after due investigation;
however, no evidence rebutting the claimant's evidence has been
brought on record. The Tribunal has, therefore, rightly concluded
that accident occurred due to sole negligence on the part of the Car
driver.
7. So far as quantification of the compensation is concerned, the
Tribunal observed that claimant has placed on record certified copy
of 7/12 extract. It is, therefore, evident that the claimant was an
agriculturist by occupation. A judicial note can be taken of the fact
(4) 32-fa-1283-2024.odt
that agriculturists holding small pieces of land themselves
cultivates same and contribute their labor in getting yield.
Considering this, a person who owns agricultural land and
cultivates it personally cannot have an income of less than Rs.
10,000/- per month, as held by the Tribunal. Recently in case of
Jitendra Vs. Sadiya and Ors (Civil Appeal No.2209/2025
dated 07.02.2025) Supreme Court observed that minimum wages
notification can be guiding factor to assess just compensation. It is
not the case that the claimant was only agricultural labour, he was
also owner of the land. In this circumstances, income of the
deceased as adopted by the Tribunal need not be disturbed. Rest of
the parameters are rightly applied. The 25% amount is added
towards future prospects, since deceased was aged 46 years. The
multiplier of 13 is properly applied. The loss of earning is
considered commensurate to the physical disablement as proved
through evidence of doctor. The medical bills are awarded as per
actual. In that view of the matter, no case is made out to interfere
in the award passed by the Tribunal. Hence, following order
ORDER
a. First Appeal is dismissed.
b. In view of dismissal of Appeal, claimant is permitted to
withdraw entire amount as deposited by the Insurance Company
alongwith accrued interest thereon.
(S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
Devendra/February-2025
