[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. ... vs Mohan Baburao Nimbalkar And Ors on 30 January, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:3922
FA-1228-2012.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1228 OF 2012
Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.
Subramaniam Building II Floor, No.1.
Club House Road,Annasalai, Chennai - 600 002.
Through its Authorized Officer ... Appellant
Versus
1. Mohan S/o Baburao Nimbalkar
Age: 40 yrs, Occ. Nil,
R/o Bajaj Nagar, MIDC Waluj,
Aurangabad ...Respondent No.1
(Original Claimant)
2. Shedshwar s/o Dagdu Chavan
Age: Major, Occu. Business, Owner of
the car bearing no. MH-12-EF-3887,
R/o 123/70, Laxmi Apartment,
Plot No. 9, Building No.3, Katraj, Pune
3. Shankar S/o Sopan Bokephode
Age 40 Years, Occ. Driver of the car,
R/o 58, Phata Malshiras, Tq. Malshiras,
Dist. Solapur ...Respondent Nos. 2 & 3
***
Mr. A. S. Deshpande, Advocate for Appellant
Mr. R. B. Dhakne, Advocate for Respondent No.1
Mr. R. B. Bagul, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3
***
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J
RESERVED ON : JANUARY 29, 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : JANUARY 30, 2026
JUDGMENT :
1. Original Respondent No. 2, an insurance company hereby
challenges grant of compensation to Respondent by learned MACT,
PAGE 1 OF 7
FA-1228-2012.odt
Aurangabad in MACP No.674/2009 on account of disability rendered
due to road traffic accident.
2. Present Respondent Mohan Baburao Nimbalkar set up
above claim petition by invoking section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
against owner/driver of the car and its insurer i.e. present Appellant
contending that on 17.06.2009, while claimant with his family
proceeding on motorcycle, in the vicinity of Bandishegaon, car bearing
registration no. MH-12-EF-3887 owned and driven by Respondent No. 3
came in opposite direction and gave dash to the motorcycle causing
grievous injuries to the leg and other parts of the body. That, in spite of
operation, his leg below knee was required to be amputed. Because of
the permanent disability, he lost his agriculture income and thereby, set
up a claim of award of compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-.
3. The above claim petition was contested by present
Appellant. Owner /driver did not contest. Insurance company denied
involvement of the vehicle, injury, disability, income etc.
After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence
adduced by claimant, learned Tribunal recorded a finding that claimant
proved that, there was rash and negligent driving on the part of
offending vehicle insured by Appellant and that, claimant suffered
permanent disability but to the extent of 70% and considering the same
PAGE 2 OF 7
FA-1228-2012.odt
as a base, awarded total compensation to the tune of Rs. 15,41,700/-.
There were directions to Opponent Nos. 1 to 3 to jointly and severally
pay the compensation at 9% p.a.
It is the above judgment and award, which is subject matter
of instant Appeal.
4. Learned Counsel for the Insurer Appellant would point out
that, present Appeal is confined only to the grant of compensation by
holding income of claimant as Rs.85,000/- per year. That, there was no
distinct evidence about such earnings. That, learned Tribunal has
calculated the above compensation in absence of legally acceptable
evidence and the same being exorbitant, he questions the impugned
judgment and award. He invited attention of this Court to the
observations of Tribunal while answering point nos. 3 to 6 and would
submit that, cross faced by the claimant has not been correctly
appreciated and so, he urges to set aside the judgment and award by
allowing the Appeal.
5. Per contra, learned Counsel for Claimant would submit
that, in fact, compensation awarded by Tribunal is not sufficient and it
is not just compensation. Regarding the objection raise by learned
Counsel for Appellant that there is no distinct cross objection, he seeks
reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Reliance
PAGE 3 OF 7
FA-1228-2012.odt
General Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Manju wd/o Vikram Choudhary & Ors ,
2021 (6) ALL MR 171. According to him, learned Tribunal ought to have
considered 100% disability and not 70% disability. According to him, it is
a functional disability that has to be considered and here, when the
clamant has lost his one leg, it has adversely affected total earning
capacity and so, he prays to enhance the compensation.
6. Heard. Perused the record.
7. On account of road traffic accident dated 17.06.2009, claim
petition by invoking Section 166 of Act has been set up by claimant. The
substance of his claim is that, because of the accident, he was initially
treated at Shree Criti Care Unit at Pandharpur and then shifted and
treated at Dinanath Mangeshkar Hospital, Pune. That, in spite of
undergoing operation, his right leg below the knee was required to be
amputed and was required to expend arount Rs. 3 to 3.5 lacks. He
further set up a case that, he was agriculturist and apart from having
his own land, he was cultivating lands of S. B. Nimbalkar and B. B.
Nimbalkar and he was earning almost Rs.1,85,000/- per year, which was
inclusive of earnings from the tractor. He has submitted that, because of
disability, the above cultivation was withdrawn by above two referred
land owners.
PAGE 4 OF 7
FA-1228-2012.odt
8. In support of above contentions, claimant seems to have
adduced his own evidence at Exhibit 41 and has also adduced evidence
of doctor who examined and assessed medical papers and issued
disability certificate Exhibit 59. In support of cultivation of others'
lands, said witnesses, namely, S. B. Nimbalkar and B. B. Nimbalkar are
also examined. These witnesses, in their evidence, have stated that,
they had given land for cultivation, but subsequently they had taken
back. Therefore, the alleged earnings from said income to the tune of
Rs.30,000/- and Rs.55,000/- respectively is apparently lost by claimant.
However, he has his own land and his cross shows that, said agriculture
activity is got done through labours. Therefore, as held by Tribunal,
there is still source of earning to the claimant.
9. As regards to disability is concerned, there is doctors
evidence. Therefore, there is no reason to discard 70% disability
suffered by the claimant.
10. Learned Tribunal has taken into account age of claimant as
38, which is derived on the strength of copy of school leaving certificate
reflecting the date of birth. Learned Tribunal, in paragraph 17, has held
that, claimant has lost Rs.85,000/- income from agriculture activity from
others land. Accepting such evidence, learned Tribunal has considered
per annum income of Rs.85,000/-. Such assessment is on the basis of
PAGE 5 OF 7
FA-1228-2012.odt
evidence adduced by claimant itself. Therefore, there is loss of income to
such extent.
On the strength of disability certificate showing 70%
disability, by applying multiplier of 15, computation has been made and
loss of income is calculated to the tune of Rs. 8,92,500/-. That apart,
learned Tribunal has awarded expenses incurred for medical to the tune
of Rs.2,74,172/- and also awarded Rs.2,00,000/- for future treatment.
Distinct amount is awarded for pain suffering as well as expenses
incurred for special diet during hospitalization.
Therefore, on re-appreciation and re-analysis, this Court is
of considered opinion that, learned Tribunal has correctly appreciated
the available evidence and in the light of disability and loss of income,
computation has been deduced, which seems to be just and proper.
11. As regards to submissions of learned Counsel for Claimant
that, learned Tribunal ought to have considered 100% disability instead
of 70%, here, it has come on record that, through doctor disability
suffered was 70%. In cross, claimant has admitted that, he has engaged
labour for conducting agriculture activity. Therefore, there is no total
loss of income itself. The percentage of disability is based on the
evidence adduced by the claimant himself before Tribunal. There is no
reason to reconsider the same to be 100% disability. This Court finds
PAGE 6 OF 7
FA-1228-2012.odt
that, learned Tribunal has awarded just compensation, which is in
consonance to the quality of evidence on record. Therefore, there is no
reason to enhance the disability from 70% to 100% and to further
enhance the compensation.
12. There is no perversity or illegality in the award so as to hold
the awarded compensation to be exorbitant and, therefore, to modify it.
No case being made out on merit, Appeal of Insurance Company
deserves to be dismissed. Hence, the following order:
ORDER
(a) First Appeal stands dismissed.
(b) Pending civil application, if any, stands disposed of.
(ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.)
Umesh
PAGE 7 OF 7
