[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Mr. Suresh Ramasurya Tadikonda @ Suresh ... vs Mr. Pravin Keshav Vanmali And Anr. on 5 January, 2026
2026:BHC-AS:41
Shubhada S Kadam FA-1906-1577-2024.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1906 of 2024
United India Insurance Company Limited Appellant
Through its manager, having their office at 1st
Floor, Pinak Galaxy, Opposite Big Bazar,
Majiwada, Kapurbawdi, Thane West,
Thane 400607.
(Insurer of Motor Cycle No. MH-48-BG-2307)
Policy No.0207003118P105921401,
policy period 04-08-2018 to 03-08-2019.
Also having office at
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
TP HUB MRO II
Union Coop Ins. Building, 5th Floor,
Sir P.M. Road, Fort, Mumbai 400023
Versus
1 Suresh Ramasurya Tadikonda @
Suresh Ramasurya Gupta Tadikonda age
about 43 years, occupation Nil, resident of B-106,
Dhoop Chaon Apartment, Near Krishna Township,
Diwanman, Ambadi Road, Vasai (West), Dist.
Palghar but at present residing at G-9, Ground
Floor, Survey No. 25, Priya Enclave Apartments,
Balamrai, Secundrabad 400003 through next
friend, (brother) Mr. Naresh Tadikonda, age 42
years.
2 Pravin Keshav Vanmali Respondents
Adult, resident of Umakant Sadan, Chulna
Road, Behind Dr. Sutaria Manickpur,
Digitally
signed by Vasai (W), Thane 401202
SHUBHADA
SHUBHADA SHANKAR (owner of Motor Cycle No. MH-48-BG-2307)
SHANKAR KADAM
KADAM Date:
2026.01.05
16:42:10
+0530
1/17
::: Uploaded on - 05/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 05/01/2026 20:36:08 :::
Shubhada S Kadam FA-1906-1577-2024.doc
with
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1577 of 2024
Suresh Ramasurya Tadikonda @ Appellant
Suresh Ramasurya Gupta Tadikonda age
about 43 years, occupation Nil, resident of B-106,
Dhoop Chaon Apartment, Near Krishna Township,
Diwanman, Ambadi Road, Vasai (West), Dist.
Palghar but at present residing at G-9, Ground
Floor, Survey No. 25, Priya Enclave Apartments,
Balamrai, Secundrabad 400003 through next
friend, (brother) Mr. Naresh Tadikonda, age 42
years.
Versus
1. Pravin Keshav Vanmali
Adult, resident of Umakant Sadan, Chulna
Road, Behind Dr. Sutaria Manickpur,
Vasai (W), Thane 401202
(owner of Motor Cycle No. MH-48-BG-2307)
2. United India Insurance Company Limited Respondents
Through its manager, having their office at 1st
Floor, Pinak Galaxy, Opposite Big Bazar,
Majiwada, Kapurbawdi, Thane West,
Thane 400607.
(Insurer of Motor Cycle No. MH-48-BG-2307)
Policy No.0207003118P105921401,
Policy Period 04-08-2018 to 03-08-2019.
Ms. Varsha Chavan, Advocate for the Insurance Company-Appellant in
First Appeal No.1906 of 2024 and for Respondent No.2 in First Appeal
No.1577 of 2024.
Ms. Rina Kundu, Advocate for the Original Claimant/Respondent No.1 in
First Appeal No.1906 of 2024 and for Appellant in First Appeal No.1577 of
2024.
2/17
::: Uploaded on - 05/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 05/01/2026 20:36:08 :::
Shubhada S Kadam FA-1906-1577-2024.doc
CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.
RESERVED ON : 23rd DECEMBER, 2025.
PRONOUNCED ON : 05th JANUARY, 2026.
Oral Judgment :
1. These appeals are filed by the Insurer and Claimant under
Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 against the judgment and
award dated 1st March 2024 passed in MACP No. 37 of 2023 (old MACP
No. 87 of 2019). Parties are referred to as claimant, insurer and owner of
the offending vehicle.
2. The facts which led to the filing of these appeals can be
narrated in brief as under:
It is a case of the claimant before the Tribunal that on
3rd September 2018 at about 8.30 p.m,. he was proceeding from Sun City
towards Omnagar on motorcycle bearing registration number MH-04-E-
8966. When he reached opposite the National Automobile Garage,
another motorcycle bearing registration number MH-48-BG-2307 came
from the opposite direction on its wrong side and gave dash to the
motorcycle of the claimant. As a result of the said dash, the claimant fell
down and sustained serious injuries and was taken to Golden Park
Hospital, Vasai. He claims to have been admitted there and thereafter
shifted to P.D.Hinduja National Hospital and Medical Research Centre,
Mahim, by ambulance on 4th September 2018. He claims to have been an
Shubhada S Kadam FA-1906-1577-2024.doc
indoor patient in the said hospital till 30th September 2018 and further
claims to have spent Rs.10,00,000/-on hospitalization and treatment. It is
further the contention of the claimant that even after his discharge from
the hospital, he is still in a quadriplegic condition and his forelimbs are
powerless. He claims to be dependent on others and since the time of the
accident could not attend his work. It is further claimed that the offending
motorcycle was owned by original opponent No.1, whereas it was insured
with opponent No.2, the insurer. It is claimed that the accident has
occurred due to the negligence on the part of the rider of the offending
motorcycle. It is further claimed that an offence came to be registered
against the rider of the said motorcycle vide Crime No.334 of 2018 and
after the conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against
the driver of the said vehicle. The claimant, therefore, has raised the claim
for compensation on account of sustainment of permanent disability which
has resulted in loss of ability to work and consequent loss of income.
3. The owner of the offending vehicle, though served with notice,
failed to appear before the Tribunal and hence the claim proceeded ex-
parte against him. Opponent- insurer, however, filed a written statement
and contested the claim. It is the case of the insurer that the offending
vehicle is falsely involved in the accident. It is contended that the accident
has allegedly taken place on 3rd September 2018, whereas the First
Information Report in this regard came to be registered on 26 th
September 2018. It is thus claimed that the insurer is not liable for
Shubhada S Kadam FA-1906-1577-2024.doc
payment of any compensation. It is further claimed that the accident has
occurred due to the negligence on the part of the claimant himself. On
these, amongst other contentions, the insurer has sought dismissal of the
claim.
4. After framing of the issues, the claimant examined himself at
Exhibit 19 and also led evidence of Ms. Bhakre (Exhibit 36), Suhas
Bharadkar ( Exhibit 61), Dr. Pestanji Malcolm Darais (Exhibit 81),
Ghanashyam Yadav(Exhibit 83), and Dr. Sameer Lokare (Exhibit 84). The
insurer took over the defence of the owner of the offending vehicle and
examined Akash Kore(Exhibit 96) and Ramesh Pote(Exhibit 104). Apart
from examining witnesses before the Tribunal, the claimant placed
reliance on documentary evidence which includes police papers i.e.
charge-sheet, injury certificate, discharge card, disability certificate and
other documents indicating incurrence of medical expenses. The learned
Tribunal allowed the claim and directed payment of compensation by
opponent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally to the tune of Rs.1,74,26,471/-
with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
5. At the outset, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
insurer submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in not
considering the plea/defence of the insurer appropriately with regard to
non-involvement of the offending vehicle in the occurrence of the accident
in question. It is her submission that not only a specific defence has been
taken in this regard, but the insurer has also led evidence pursuant to
Shubhada S Kadam FA-1906-1577-2024.doc
taking over all defences of the owner of the vehicle by making an
application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Exhibit 18). It is
her submission that the alleged accident has taken place on 3rd
September 2018, whereas the First Information Report came to be lodged
on 26th September 2018. In this regard, she made reference to the
evidence led by the claimant, which according to her indicates that the
involvement of the offending vehicle has been falsely shown in this case
in order to seek a claim from the insurance company. It is further argued
that police papers and the copy of the charge-sheet on record indicate
that there is no substance in the contention of the claimant about the
involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident. Without prejudice to
these submissions, it is further argued that in any case, if this Court
comes to the conclusion that there is involvement of the offending vehicle
in the accident, it be held that the accident has occurred due to the
negligence on the part of the claimant himself. In this regard, reference is
made to the spot panchnama which, according to her, indicates that the
accident has occurred in the middle of the road and, therefore, the
claimant himself needs to be considered as negligent for its occurrence.
6. On the point of the claim of the claimant with regard to causing
of injuries and permanent disability, so also loss of income, it is argued
that the injury certificate at Exhibit-27 indicates only three injuries caused
to the claimant, namely CLW over frontal region, fracture of left hand and
abrasion on face. She also referred to the discharge summary which
Shubhada S Kadam FA-1906-1577-2024.doc
according to her shows that there was no further deterioration seen in the
neurological status of the patient. It is submitted that from the medical
evidence on record it cannot be said that the claimant is still in
quadriplegic condition and his forelimbs are powerless. It is her further
submission that the doctor who has assessed the disability of the claimant
is not the treating doctor and the treating doctor has not deposed about
any such condition of the claimant. By referring to the cross-examination
of Dr. Lokare, it is argued that the assessment of disability has been done
without taking any new/fresh X-ray or CT scan report and he admitted that
he cannot say about present condition of patient. It is thus submitted that
on the basis of such evidence, the assessment of disability of the claimant
cannot be accepted.
7. On the point of quantum of compensation determined by the
Tribunal, it is argued that the Tribunal has committed an error in accepting
the income of the claimant and his alleged termination from service. It is
contended that the Tribunal ought to have deducted the amount of
mediclaim received by the claimant from the total amount of
compensation. It is submitted that the mediclaim is received towards the
injuries caused in the same accident and therefore the claimant is not
entitled to receive such compensation thrice in respect of the same
accident. Lastly, it is argued that the Tribunal has committed an error in
presuming that this is a case of quadriplegia and proceeded to grant
compensation which is excessive in nature. On these, amongst other
Shubhada S Kadam FA-1906-1577-2024.doc
submissions, the learned counsel for the insurer sought setting aside of
the impugned judgment and award.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimant has
supported the impugned judgment and award on the point of findings
recorded by the Tribunal regarding involvement of the offending vehicle in
the accident and negligence on the part of the rider of the said vehicle. In
this regard, it is submitted that there is documentary evidence on record in
the form of charge-sheet indicating that the rider of the offending vehicle
was charged for negligent driving and the said charge-sheet has not been
challenged by him. It is further argued that it was open for the insurer to
examine the pillion rider of the said vehicle. However, for want of
examination of the said pillion rider, it cannot be said that the insurer has
succeeded in establishing the defence taken in the written statement. It is
submitted that the claimant is required to prove the claim on probability
and on the basis of evidence of the claimant himself coupled with the
police papers/charge-sheet, he has succeeded in proving the involvement
of the offending vehicle in the accident and negligence on the part of the
rider of the said vehicle. With regard to the injuries caused to the claimant
and disability, it is argued that there is no cross-examination conducted of
the witnesses examined by the claimant in order to deny causing of
injuries or disability. She, however, made grievance that the Tribunal has
committed an error in not considering the revised salary of the claimant. In
this regard, reference is made to communication dated 18th May 2018
Shubhada S Kadam FA-1906-1577-2024.doc
which according to her indicates that the salary was revised and bonus
was also included therein. Thus, it is her submission that the judgment
and award passed by the learned Tribunal requires modification and the
claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation on heads not
considered by the Tribunal including pain and suffering, medical bills etc..
9. The claimant is required to prove his case on the
preponderance of probability. In order to substantiate his case with regard
to occurrence of the accident and involvement of the offending vehicle
therein, he examined himself and also led evidence in the form of charge-
sheet filed against the rider of the offending motorcycle. It is needless to
say that merely because the FIR came to be lodged after a lapse of
substantial period that by itself it does not become a ground for discarding
the same. The Court is required to take into consideration the overall
circumstances in which the report came to be lodged belatedly. If the
circumstances are self-explanatory and there is other material on record
to hold involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident, it would not
be open for the Court to discard the case of the claimant. From the
evidence on record, it is clear that after the occurrence of the accident, the
claimant was immediately taken to the hospital and was treated in the
Intensive Care Unit of P.D. Hinduja Hospital. It is pertinent to note that
there is a history recorded in the discharge card with regard to the patient
i.e. the claimant having met with a road traffic accident involving two
motorcycles. Merely because in the first hospital, i.e. Golden Park
Shubhada S Kadam FA-1906-1577-2024.doc
Hospital, no MLC was registered, it cannot be held that no accident had
occurred as claimed by the claimant. The injury certificate issued by
Golden Park Hospital also indicates that this is a case of history of road
traffic accident. It further indicates that the claimant was brought to the
hospital by local public in unconscious condition. These circumstances
clearly indicate that having regard to the nature of serious injuries caused
to the claimant, and as he was not able to move, the family members and
relatives were not expected to go to the police station and lodge the report
immediately. Non-lodging of the report by the concerned hospital cannot
become a ground for discarding the case sought to be made out by the
claimant with regard to the occurrence of the accident and involvement of
the offending motorcycle therein.
10. Though learned counsel for the insurer has sought to draw
attention of the Court to the inconsistencies in statements of eyewitnesses
with regard to taking note of information regarding the motorcycle and its
number, it is pertinent to note that the claimant examined himself and
narrated the manner in which the accident occurred. Needless to say that
having sustained serious injuries, it was not expected of the claimant to
report the matter to the police. Pertinently, in his cross-examination, it has
come on record that after the occurrence of the accident, he became
unconscious. He denied the suggestion that the offending vehicle i.e. the
motorcycle was not involved in the accident and was falsely implicated
therein.
Shubhada S Kadam FA-1906-1577-2024.doc
11. The claimant examined Ghanashyam Yadav, an eyewitness to
the accident. He deposed about having seen the accident and
involvement of the offending motorcycle therein. He was thoroughly cross-
examined by the counsel for the insurer. In the cross-examination, it has
come on record that at the time of the occurence of the accident he was
standing at National Automobile Garage. It is further clear from the
suggestions made to this witness that at the time of the accident, both
two-wheelers had fallen on the road. It is claimed that the rider of the
offending vehicle got up and left the spot with his vehicle. He further
stated that at the time of the said motorcycle leaving the spot, he noted
the number. Though this statement appears to be not in tune with other
statements but not enough to discard his testimony completely. It must
be noted that this is not a criminal trial wherein strict proof of the fact is
contemplated. The evidence on record coupled with documentary
evidence ie. the charge-sheet filed against the rider of the motor-cycle
clearly indicates that the claimant has succeeded in proving his case with
regard to the involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident on the
basis of probability. The onus, therefore, shifted on the owner of the
offending vehicle and insurer to prove otherwise. In the regard, since, the
owner of the offending vehicle failed to appear before the Tribunal, the
burden was on the insurer to take over the defences of owner and prove
the same. The insurer examined witness-Akash Kore at Exhibit 96, who is
the rider of the offending motor-cycle. He claimed that he did not make
Shubhada S Kadam FA-1906-1577-2024.doc
any statement to police and was asked to sign papers. In his cross-
examination, however, he admitted that he never lodged any complaint
with the police regarding obtaining his signatures on paper. He admits that
the proceedings viz. the criminal case is pending against him. From his
evidence, it is clear that he never took objection to tenability of the charge-
sheet against him for non-involvement of the motorcycle in question in the
accident. The entire evidence on record, therefore, clearly indicates that
this is not a case wherein a false report has been lodged with regard to
the involvement of the offending motorcycle in the accident. Therefore, it
is held that the offending vehicle was involved in the accident and the
owner and insurer were rightly joined as opponents to the claim petition.
12. Learned counsel for the insurer alternatively sought to attribute
negligence to the claimant in the occurrence of the accident. The spot
panchnama is referred to, which according to her indicates that the
accident occurred in the middle of the road, which is indicative of the fact
that the claimant has contributed therein. Perusal of the spot panchanama
shows that it is a rough sketch and it does not indicate that the accident
occurred exactly in the middle of the road. Rather, it appears to be more
on the correct side of the claimant's motorcycle. Apart from this, it is
pertinent to note that even in the cross-examination, no suggestion was
made to the claimant regarding his negligence in the occurence of the
accident. In fact, what was suggested was that the motorcycle skid on the
road and one unknown vehicle knocked him down. These suggestions do
Shubhada S Kadam FA-1906-1577-2024.doc
not support the case sought to be made out by the insurer about
negligence on the part of the claimant in the occurrence of the accident.
This Court, therefore, finds no hesitation to accept the findings recorded
by the learned Tribunal with regard to the involvement of the offending
vehicle in the accident, so also negligence on the part of the rider of the
offending motorcycle in question.
13. On the point of sustainment of injuries in the said accident, the
claimant on oath deposed about causing of the injuries and treatment
being taken at Golden Park Hospital. It has come on record in cross-
examination that discharge was obtained by the claimant against medical
advice and thereafter he was taken to Hinduja Hospital. Claimant
examined Suhas Bharadkar, an employee of P.D.Hinduja Hospital. This
witness deposed about period of hospitalization of claimant. He also
deposed about the operative procedures conducted on the claimant.
According to this witness, the claimant has spent a sum of Rs. 7,61,025/-
on medical treatment at this hospital. The claimant also examined
Dr. Sameer Lokare, who had assessed the disability of the claimant. He
had not treated the patient, however, he examined him for the purpose of
assessment of his disability. It is further stated by this witness that the
claimant was brought to him on a stretcher and he found Grade 2/5 power
loss in the bilateral upper and lower limbs. Dr. Sameer Lokare assessed
disability at 96% and issued disability certificate (Exhibit 85). During the
cross examination the expertise of the witness to assess disability was not
Shubhada S Kadam FA-1906-1577-2024.doc
challenged. Merely because treating doctor has not issued the disability
certificate, the same cannot be discarded if assessment is done by expert
correctly. In the cross-examination, the insurer's counsel could not elicit
anything in order to discard the assessment of the disability done by this
doctor. Apart from this, the Tribunal has recorded in notes of evidence
that the claimant was brought to the Court on wheelchair. All these facts
clearly indicate that the disability assessed by the medical officer,
deserves acceptance and owing to the said disability, the claimant could
not even perform his daily routine without assistance.
14. According to the claimant, he was serving as Assistant
Manager with DHFL Primerica and earning Rs.7,71,460/- per annum. He
further claimed that because of the physical condition, he could not attend
the work thereafter. He was relieved from the service with effect from 20 th
September 2019. His oral testimony gets support from the evidence of
Ms. Maria Bhakre, Manager(HR) of the said company. She placed on
record the appointment letter of the claimant, as well as the compensation
and reward statement for the assessment year 2017-2018. In the cross-
examination of this witness, it has come on record that for financial year
2017-18, the claimant had drawn a salary of Rs 6,31,370/- per annum and
an amount of Rs 11,374/- was deducted towards the statutory taxes.
Similarly, it is confirmed in the cross-examination that the claimant was
relieved from the services. No other reason for his discontinuation from
service has been brought on record. Thus, more is the reason to believe
Shubhada S Kadam FA-1906-1577-2024.doc
that owing to physical disability caused on account of accidental injuries,
his employment was terminated.
15. Learned Tribunal has accepted the income of the claimant at
Rs 6,30,683/-. Learned counsel for the claimant has sought to convince
this Court that the Tribunal has failed to take into consideration the
revised salary of the claimant and bonus has not been included, while
determining the amount of compensation. Perusal of the impugned
judgment indicates that the Tribunal has considered original appointment
order, so also revised salary on promotion and accepted the annual
income of the claimant of Rs.6,30,683/-. Considering the evidence on
record, this Court finds no reason or justification for not accepting the
findings recorded by the Tribunal with regard to the employment and
income of the claimant.
16. As stated earlier, the claimant has sustained disability to the
extent of 96% and on that account, he has lost his earning capacity. The
compensation amount determined by the learned Tribunal by applying
appropriate multiplier is correct requiring no interference therein. As far as
the attendant charges granted by the Tribunal are concerned, it is
pertinent to note that having regard to the health condition of the claimant,
he will definitely require assistance. Apart from this, it is rightly held by
the Tribunal that he will need physiotherapy for almost his entire life.
Needless to say that towards special diet, conveyance, wheelchair etc.,
he is entitled to be compensated. The learned Tribunal has granted the
Shubhada S Kadam FA-1906-1577-2024.doc
compensation under different heads and this Court finds no reason to add
anything thereto.
17. It is argued on behalf of the insurer that in the admission given
by witness- Maria, the amount of medical treatment came to be
reimbursed by Birla Health Insurance Company and, therefore, the said
amount requires deduction from the total compensation. In this regard, it
is pertinent to note that there is no further explanation sought from this
witness as to whether the said reimbursement is against mediclaim policy
taken by the claimant or the said insurance was obtained by the employer.
In the first case, since such reimbursement is on the basis of contract of
insurance, the claimant would be entitled to receive the same irrespective
of the said claim being allowed under the Motor Vehicles Act. In second
eventuality, insurance policy taken by Employer becomes integral part of
service benefits/conditions. Needless to say that in respect of any benefit
provided by the employer to an employee, he/she is required to render
services against the same. Thus, it cannot be said that something over
and above the service condition has been paid to the claimant. Therefore,
there is no justification for deduction of the amount of medical expenses
reimbursed to the claimant under insurance policy.
18. The aforestated discussion clearly indicates that there is no
merit in both appeals and, consequently, both appeals stand dismissed.
No order as to cost.
Shubhada S Kadam FA-1906-1577-2024.doc
19. The claimant is permitted to withdraw the deposited amount
along with accrued interest thereon.
20. The statutory amount be transmitted to the Tribunal along with
accrued interest thereon. The parties are at liberty to withdraw it as per
Rule.
21. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(R. M. JOSHI, J.)
