Bombay High Court

Sandip Nanasaheb Shinde vs Arjun Damodhar Padekar And Anr on 30 July, 2025

2025:BHC-AUG:20055
                                                                      FA-2354.2022
                                               -1-

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                               BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                               FIRST APPEAL NO.2354 OF 2022

            Sandip S/o. Nanasaheb Shinde,
            Age : 39 years, Occu. : Agril.,
            R/o. Ganesh Nagar, Opp. Malpani Lodge,
            Sakar Plaza, Sangamner,
            Tq. Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar                      ... Appellant
                                                                  (Orig. Claimants)

                              Versus
            1.    Arjun S/o. Damodhar Padekar,
                  Age : Major, Occu. : Agril. & Service,
                  R/o. Dhamangaon Road,
                  Dhumalwadi, Akole, Tq. Akole,
                  Dist. Ahmednagar.

            2.    United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
                  Hotel Karam Building,
                  Pune Nashik Highway,
                  Opp. S. T. Bus Stand, Sangamner,
                  Tq. Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar.             ... Respondents.
                                                                  (Orig. Opponents)

                                             .....
            Mr. K. N. Shermale, Advocate for Appellant.
            Mr. Vinodkumar R. Mundada, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
                                             .....
                                            CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
                                    RESERVED ON : 22 JULY 2025
                                 PRONOUNCED ON : 30 JULY 2025
            JUDGMENT :

1. Original claimant, who preferred M.A.C.P. No.5 of 2014

seeking compensation for injury suffered by him by accident dated

04.09.2013, dissatisfied by the quantum of compensation as well as

failure to correctly ascertain the disability and non consideration of

medical bills.

FA-2354.2022

2. Brief facts giving rise to the accident claim petition are

that, on 04.02.2013, at around 11:00 a.m., appellant, who was a

pedestrian, walking over Sangamner to Akole Bypass road, who was

hit from backside by a Jeep bearing registration No. MH-17-AE-2072

causing him injuries to leg, back, head, left side rib and back side

bone requiring him hospitalization from 04.09.2013 to 19.09.2013

where he was required to spend around Rs.1,10,000/- and he also

suffered permanent disability. It is his case that, he was an

agriculturist and earning around Rs.5,00,000/- to Rs.6,00,000/- per

annum from the agriculture as well as milk business. Accidental

injuries and disability rendered him loss of earning and functional

capacity and thereby he set up claim of Rs.5,00,000/-.

3. After notice as there was no response from respondent

no.1, Tribunal has proceeded ex-parte against him.

4. Respondent No.2 Insurance Company resisted the claim

by filing written statement Exh.22 taking up a stand of false

implication denying involvement of jeep, denying negligence and

taking a stand of breach of policy on account of non availability of

effective driving licence.

FA-2354.2022

5. After appreciating the evidence adduced by the claimant,

learned tribunal was pleased to partly allow the claim by judgment

and order dated 02.11.2018 awarding compensation to the tune of

Rs.95,000/- including the amount of N.F.L. Rs.25,000/- with interest

@ 8% per annum. Getting dissatisfied by the same, original claimant

has preferred instant appeal on various grounds mentioned in the

appeal memo.

6. Learned counsel for original claimant would submit that,

there is improper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence

adduced by the claimant in trial court. He submitted that claimant

had proved injuries by examining medical expert and permanent

disability to the extent of 40% was also proved by placing certificate

on record. That, even medical bills were placed on record. The same

are not considered and appreciated correctly by the learned trial

court. He also raised the point that amounts granted under various

heads are meager, and therefore, he expects an enhancement.

7. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 supported the

judgment and opposed the appeal on the ground that, there was

firstly no evidence to show direct involvement of jeep in question

which was insured by Insurance Company. Secondly, disability

certificate and medical bills are manufactured documents. Therefore, FA-2354.2022

learned tribunal committed no error in not accepting the same.

Lastly, he justifies the compensation granted by tribunal and urges to

dismiss the appeal for want of merits.

8. Heard. Re-appreciated the evidence as regards to

accident dated 04.09.2013, on the strength of documents like FIR

and spot Exhs.35 and 36, occurrence of accident stands

demonstrated. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 Insurance

Company would submit that, there is delay in FIR and there is no

involvement of vehicle. However, considering the above fact and the

investigation papers which are placed before tribunal, this court does

not find any reason to doubt the involvement of offending jeep

insured by respondent no.2.

9. Close scrutiny of spot coupled with the hand sketch map

show that dash was given from backside to a pedestrian and

therefore, even question of negligence and rash driving need not be

doubted. Therefore, there is material before the trial Judge to hold

that on 04.09.2013, claimant, who was pedestrian, was given dash

from the backside of the jeep. As regards to injury is concerned, it is

the claim of appellant - claimant that he had suffered injuries to his

right leg, back, head, left rib and back side bone. He has examined

PW2 Dr. Dange, who claims to have not only treated, but has also FA-2354.2022

assessed and issued permanent disability certificate. This medical

expert has testified about fracture to hip and fracture to four ribs.

However, in cross examination he has admitted that, no

surgery was required to be undertaken for the said fracture and

minor surgery to remove air and blood from the lungs was required

to be undertaken.

10. Dr. Dange seems to have admitted that, he did not

perform any surgery in respect of fracture allegedly suffered by him.

However, in cross examination, he has answered that fracture to the

ribs automatically reunited, but not in every case. Therefore,

material placed on record as regards to disability is concerned, there

is no need to doubt doctor's evidence. Therefore, this court is also

convinced about sufficient evidence is available regarding accidental

injuries resulting into fracture to hip as well to the ribs.

11. Learned counsel for appellant has pointed out that above

aspects are not correctly appreciated by learned tribunal and learned

tribunal has held that there was no permanent disability. In view of

such objection, the impugned judgment is visited. It is noticed that

while answering issue no.2, there is discussion about alleged

disability and analysis of evidence of medical expert.

FA-2354.2022

12. In paragraph 26, learned tribunal has held that there is

no surgery required to be undergone for the fracture. However,

medical expert has specifically though stated that fracture to the ribs

reunite automatically, it does not happen so in every case. In

paragraph 27, learned tribunal has held that, in the net result the

petitioner/appellant has not sustained the injuries which can be

resulted into permanent disability, which would effect his earning

capacity and has further drawn inference that opinion given by

medical expert is on higher side and disability specially issued to help

the claimant. But again in paragraph 30, learned tribunal has held

that, "the fact remains that the petitioner had sustained fracture

injuries to ribs and hip. Therefore, naturally he will find difficulty in

making movements like normal person." Therefore, observations

raised in paragraph 24 and 27 are contrary.

13. Learned counsel pointed out that, there is non

consideration of medical bills and papers by the tribunal. On this

issue, there seems to be discussion in paragraph 34 and 35 by

answering issue no.4, wherein Insurance Company has seriously

questioned the bills stating that the same are manipulated. Here, it is

noticed that not only PW2 Dr. Dange, but another doctor whose name

appears on medical bills namely Dr. Mhaske has appeared. However,

he is not examined. When bills are sought to be relied, it was FA-2354.2022

expected of claimant to examine Dr. Mhaske, however, said doctor

has not been examined. Therefore, as held by tribunal, there are

reasons to doubt the credibility of the medical papers.

14. Under such circumstances, considering the nature of

injuries, in the considered opinion of this court and the claim petition

benevolent legislation, lump-sum amount for medical expenses to the

tune of Rs.1,00,000/- is required to be granted, more particularly

taking into account the duration of hospitalization, nature and parts,

which are impacted due to the mishap.

15. Though there is nothing to show that because of the said

disability, claimant is incapacitated permanently from rendering any

work, he is entitled for the distinct compensation under the head of

pain and suffering. Tribunal has granted only Rs.10,000/- and the

same is requires to be enhanced to Rs.25,000/-, more particularly in

view of the nature of injuries.

14. Therefore, in addition to the quantum awarded by the

Tribunal, an amount of Rs. 50,000/- needs to be added to the

compensation for medical expenses so also Rs.15,000/- needs to be

added under the head of 'pain and suffering'. Hence, I proceed to pass

the following order:-

FA-2354.2022

ORDER

(i) The First Appeal is partly allowed with proportionate costs.

(ii) Impugned judgment and award dated 02.11.2018, passed by

the Member of M.A.C.T., Sangamner in M.A.C.P. No.05 of 2014 is

modified.

(iii) Respondent no.2 - Insurance Company to pay enhanced

compensation of Rs.65,000/- to claimant within 12 weeks from today

along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of registration of

claim petition till its realization.