[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Dattu Ashruba Naikwade vs Dattatraya Rajendra Munde And Ors on 25 February, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:8195
FA-2015-2017.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2015 OF 2017
Dattu S/o Ahsruba Naikwade,
Age - 57 yeas, Occu. Agriculture,
R/o: Tadsonna, Tq. & Dist. Beed. ...Appellant
Versus
1. Dattatraya s/o Rajendra Munde
Age - 37 years, Occu. Rickshaw
Owner and Driver,
R/o. Kotharban, Tq. Dharur,
Dist. Beed.
2. Shaikh Mainoddin s/o Shaikh Babamia
Age - 42 years, Occu. Driver,
R/o. Chinchwan, Tq. Dharur, Dist. Beed.
3. Baig Mahboob Hassan,
Age - Major, Occu. Agri.,
R/o. Pimpalner, Tq. & Dist. Beed.
4. The Branch Manager,
National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Hajari Chamber, Station Road,
Padampura, Aurangabad. ...Respondents
***
• Mr. A. N. Nagargoje, Advocate for the Appellant
• Mr. S. V. Kulkarni, Advocate for the Respondent No. 4
***
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J
RESERVED ON : FEBRUARY 23, 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : FEBRUARY 25, 2026
JUDGMENT :
1. Original Claimant in MACP No. 173/2010 challenges
judgment and award dated 21.03.2017 passed by learned MACT, Beed,
PAGE 1 OF 5
FA-2015-2017.odt
which was an injury claim filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act.
2. Above claim petition was filed on the premise that, on
05.10.2008 Appellant was returning home in Ape Rickshaw bearing no.
MH-23-C-7145. When it reached Morwad phata, Respondent no. 1 -
driver lost control over the vehicle, as a result of which, the rickshaw
toppled and claimant Appellant suffered fracture injury and was
required to be admitted and treated at Seth Nandlal Dhoot Hospital
upto 14.10.2008 wherein he incurred over Rs.23,277/- and suffered 5%
permanent disability. That, he was earning Rs.10,000/- from agriculture
income but because of the permanent disability, his income is adversely
effected and, therefore, he sought compensation to the tune of
Rs.1,00,000/-.
Above claim was resisted by Respondent Insurance
Company and owner and on appreciating the oral and documentary
evidence, learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition awarding
compensation to the tune of Rs.41,000/-, which were directed to be paid
by the Respondents jointly and severally.
3. Dissatisfied by the above, instant First Appeal has been
filed, during which learned Counsel for Appellant pointed out that,
Appellant had proved rash and negligence on the part of the driver of
the rickshaw. That, there was cogent and reliable evidence about he
PAGE 2 OF 5
FA-2015-2017.odt
suffering fracture injury and consequently, suffering permanent
disability. However, learned Tribunal merely considered 5% disability
and awarded Rs.5,000/- and further erred in holding that, agriculture
activity was got done by engaging worker and, therefore, virtually there
was no loss of income. According to learned Counsel learned Tribunal
erred in above extent.
4. He pointed out that, apart from granting meager
compensation, medical expenses as incurred and claimed are also not
granted. That, even amounts under various heads is meager and,
therefore, he prays to enhance the same by at least granting whatever
was claimed.
5. Learned Counsel for Insurance Company Respondent No. 4
would justify the order of Tribunal and prays not to interfere with the
same, it being just and fair compensation.
6. Re-appreciated the evidence. Here in support of above claim
of suffering fracture injury and permanent disability, claimant had
adduced evidence of Dr. Sharad Gangadharrao Phatale, at Exhibit 53,
who, in his evidence deposed that, he examined Appellant, who suffered
road traffic accident on 05.10.2008 and the injury suffered was
compound fracture, which had caused 5% disability. Therefore, on the
PAGE 3 OF 5
FA-2015-2017.odt
evidence of Appellant itself, medical expert had derived permanent
disability to the extent of 5%.
7. As regards to non consideration of agriculture income to the
tune of Rs.10,000/-, on studying the observations of Tribunal in its
judgment paragraph 19, after taking into account doctors' evidence,
wherein he has admitted that, patient can do agriculture work,
definitely there is no loss of earning capacity. Moreover, claimant has
himself set up case that, he was getting agriculture activity done by
engaging labour and for said reason also, there was no loss of earning
capacity due to alleged disability to the extent of 5%. Therefore,
Tribunal has not committed any error in granting Rs.5,000/- taking 5%
disability into account.
8. As regards to medical expenses are concerned, Tribunal has
granted compensation for the medical bills to the tune of Rs.20,000/-,
has granted attendant charges to the tune of Rs.10,000/-. However, for
special diet Tribunal has granted Rs.2,000/- and for pain and suffering
Rs.2,000/- and, therefore, the same is required to be enhanced each as is
appears to be meager. Hence, amount of compensation payable is
determined as follows:
Sr. Heads Calculations in Rs.
No.
1. Medical Expenses Rs.20,000/-
PAGE 4 OF 5
FA-2015-2017.odt
2. Attendant, visitors, guests charges Rs.10,000/-
3. Special Diet Rs.5,000/-
4. Pain and sufferings Rs.10,000/-
5. Mental agony Rs..5,000/-
6. Permanent disability Rs.5,000/-
7. Hence, total compensation to be paid Rs. 55,000/-
8. Compensation awarded by Tribunal Rs.41,000/-
9. Total enhanced Compensation Rs.14,000/-
9. As a result of above, Appeal stands partly allowed. Hence,
the order:
ORDER
(a) First Appeal is partly allowed. Impugned judgment and
award dated 21.03.2017 passed in MACP No.173 of 2010
is modified. Total compensation is Rs.55,000/- inclusive
of amount of "no fault liability" along with interest @ 8%
per annum from the date of institution of claim petition
till its realization.
(b) Original Respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4 are held jointly and
severally liable to pay compensation to claimants.
(c) Claimant to pay Court fee on enhanced compensation as
per rules.
(d) Rest of judgment and award of Tribunal to remain
unchanged.
(e) The difference of compensation amount be deposited
within a period of six weeks.
(f) Amount deposited (along with interest) by Respondents
is permitted to be withdrawn by Claimant/Appellant.
(g) No order as to costs.
(h) In view of disposal of Appeal, pending applications, if
any, stands disposed of.
(ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.)
Umesh
PAGE 5 OF 5
