[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Mohd. Sadik Mohd. Sidhiki vs Anil Madhukarrao Nagpurkar And 2 Others on 19 January, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:774
1/9 10 fa 589-15
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR.
FIRST APPEAL NO.589 OF 2015
Mohd. Sadik Mohd. Sidhiki APPELLANT:
Aged 48 years, Occup. Private Ori. Claimant on R.A
Service R/o Dahipura (Karanja),
Tq.Karanja, District Washim.
-Versus-
1. Anil Madhukarrao Nagpurkar, Ori. Claimant on R.A.
Aged Major Occup. Driver, R/o
Ravi Nagar Chouk, Nagpur,
Tq.and dist. Nagpur.
2. Rahul Sheshrao Meshram, Aged
major, Occup. Owner of the
Vehicle, R/o, C/o Manoj
Ghagwatkar, Plot No.51,
Ramnagar, Maral Toli Nagpur
Tq.and Dist. Nagpur.
3. I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General
Insurance Company Limited,
through its Divisional Manager,
Branch Office Near Railway RESPONDENTS
Station, Vimaco Tower Amravati, Ori. Respondents on R.A
Tq. And Dist.Amravati.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. P.R.Agrawal, Advocate for Appellant.
Mr.N.J.Patil Advocate h/f Mr. R.D.Bhuibar, Adv.for
respondent No.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.
DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT: 12.01.2026.
DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT: 19.01.2026.
Kavita.
2/9 10 fa 589-15
JUDGMENT :
-
1) This is an Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short MV Act), by the Original
Claimant for enhancement in the compensation awarded by
the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amravati (for
short 'Tribunal'), in the Claim Petition No.420 of 2009 by
the judgment and Award dated 06/12/2014. The said Claim
Petition was under Section 166 of the MV Act for
compensation towards permanent disability caused due to
motor vehicular accident.
2) The Appellant filed the above referred Claim
Petition before the Tribunal contending that on 06.09.2009,
when he was travelling on the motor cycle bearing No.MH-
27-C-5717 from Karanja to Nagpur road in moderate speed,
the Maroti Car bearing Registration No.-31-CS-1246, which
was coming from the opposite direction in a high speed and
negligent manner, gave dash to the motor cycle and the
accident occurred. In the said accident, he suffered grievous
injury leading to the amputation of his left leg and he suffered
permanent disability.
Kavita.
3/9 10 fa 589-15
3) The said Petition was resisted by the Respondents
by filing their respective Written Statements. The Appellant
led his evidence in support of the Claim Petition. On the
basis of the evidence available on record, the learned Tribunal
passed the Judgment and Order/Award granting
compensation of Rs.5,93,820/- inclusive of no fault liability
along with the interest.
4) It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the
Appellant that disability suffered by the Appellant was 75%
and the learned Tribunal considered the functional disability
of 60% instead of 75%. The learned Tribunal considered the
notional income of the Appellant on the lower side @
3,000/- per month. The compensation under the other
necessary heads is awarded on lower side. No compensation
was awarded towards future loss of income. The
compensation, therefore be enhanced appropriately and the
Appeal be allowed.
5) In support of his submissions, he relied on the following
judgments.:-
i) Pratap Vs. Indrakumar Holaram Kewalramani and
Kavita.
4/9 10 fa 589-15
ors. reported in 2025 NCBHC-NAG 14820.
ii) Vinod Bhimrao Bhalavi Vs. Maharashtra State
Road Transport Corporation and anr. passed by this
Court in First Appeal No.213 of 2021 decided on
15/02/2022.
iii) Seema Parveen Yusuf and anr Vs. Santosh
Ramnarayan Tiwari and ors. passed by this Court in First
Appeal No.1003 of 2009 decided on 09/01/2023.
6) According to the learned Advocate for the Insurance
Company, in absence of income proof, the learned Tribunal
has rightly considered the notional income of Rs.3,000/- per
month. The learned Tribunal has appropriately considered
the Claim Petition and awarded just compensation and no
interference was called for in the Judgment and Award passed
by the learned Tribunal.
7) In Pratap Vs. Indrakumar Holaram Kewalramani and
ors. (supra), cited by the learned Advocate for the Appellant,
the relevant judgments in respect of the personal injury
claims are considered. There is reference of the judgment in
Rajkumar V.Ajay Kumar and anr. , (2011) 1 SCC,343 and
Pappu Deo Yadav V.Naresh Kumar, (2022), 13 SCC 790.
The said judgments lay down the heads under which the
compensation can be awarded in personal injury cases and the
Kavita.
5/9 10 fa 589-15
principles in respect of assessing the claims towards the
personal injuries. In view of the said judgments, the evidence
on record is to be assessed.
8) The claimant has approached this Court mainly on the
ground of the quantum. According to the Appellant, he was
into private service and working with one transporter earning
Rs.6,000/- per month. Undisputedly, the Appellant had not
examined his employer to prove the income. The learned
Tribunal observed that, there is no evidence that, the
claimant was working as a skilled labour and on the contrary,
during his cross examination, he admitted that, he can do the
work, which he used to do prior to the accident. This
observation by the learned Tribunal is based on the evidence
on record. In the cross-examination of the Appellant he
admitted that, he had not mentioned in the claim application
that he was working with the transporter at Amravati and
further admitted that, he had not brought on record the
document to show that he was receiving Rs.6,000/- per
month from the said transporter. The learned Tribunal has
considered the notional income of Rs.3000/- per month. The
Kavita.
6/9 10 fa 589-15
Accident is of September 2009. Even if, it is presumed that,
the Appellant was doing the labour work, he would have
been earning Rs.150/- per day. If, that per day wages are
considered, the monthly income would come to Rs.4500/-. In
Pratap Vs. Indrakumar Holaram Kewalramani and ors ,
(supra), the claimant therein was working with the Company
and by examining the Officer from the Company, the
monthly salary was proved. In Vinod Bhimrao Bhalavi Vs.
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and anr.
(supra) the claimant therein was an agricultural labourer. In
Seema Parveen Yusuf and anr Vs. Santosh Ramnarayan
Tiwari and ors.(supra) the claimant was earning from the
agricultural operations. Here in the case at hand, the
notional monthly income of the injured is considered
Rs.4500/-.
9) The contention of the learned Advocate for the
Appellant is that, though the disability certificate indicate
75% disability, the learned Tribunal considered his functional
disability to the extent of 60%. According to him, the
percentage shown in disability certificate should have been
Kavita.
7/9 10 fa 589-15
considered by the Tribunal to calculate the amount towards
loss of income due to functional disability. The said
contention of learned Advocate for the Appellant is
unacceptable in the light of the observations in the above
referred judgment in Rajkumar V.Ajay Kumar and anr
(supra). Wherein the principles are laid down that :-
" The percentage of permanent disability
with reference to the whole body of a person
cannot be assumed to be the percentage of
earning capacity. To put it differently, the
percentage of loss of earning capacity is not
the same as the percentage of permanent
disability."
10) In the case at hand, in the cross examination of the
Appellant before the learned Tribunal it has come that he
used to work by sitting in the chair. The disability suffered by
the Appellant is amputation of leg below the knee. Therefore,
the functional disability cannot be taken as reflected in the
disability certificate. The learned Tribunal by considering the
schedule I part II of Workman's Compensation Act, 1923
considered at 60%. Thus, I do not find any reason to interfere
with the said findings.
11) The other contention of the learned Advocate for the
Kavita.
8/9 10 fa 589-15
Appellant is that the compensation granted under the various
heads was on lower side and same be increased. The
judgment of the learned Tribunal shows that for pain and
suffering, the amount of Rs.50,000/- is awarded, towards
medical bills amount of Rs.1,30,000/- is granted, Rs.5,000/-
is awarded for special nutritious diet and Rs.10,000/- is
awarded towards loss of amenities and Rs.5,700/- is awarded
under actual loss of income. The observation in para 14 of the
judgment of learned Tribunal shows that, while calculating
the income, future prospects are taken into consideration.
Undisputedly, the Appellant has not examined the treating
Doctor. There is no medical evidence to show that, there was
need of future medical expenses. It is no where, the case of
the Appellant that, he was not married, therefore, there is no
question of Awarding the compensation under head 'loss of
prospects of marriage'. There is no medical evidence to show
that, due to disability, there was loss of expectation of life.
Under such circumstances, except the monthly income, no
case is made out for granting enhanced amount under the
other heads which is granted by the learned Tribunal. The
Kavita.
9/9 10 fa 589-15
compensation amount is computed as under:-
1. Annual income before Accident Rs.4,500 X 12 = Rs.54,000/-
2. Loss of future earnings per Rs.32,400/-
annum (60%) of the prior annual
income.
3 Multiplier applicable to the age 14
of 42
4. Loss of future earnings Rs.32,400 X 14 = 4,53,600/-
12) The amount towards other heads such as pain and
sufferings, loss amenities, expenses towards medical bills, loss
of income during the treatment and towards special and
nutritious diet as considered by the learned Tribunal needs
no interference. The said amount needs to be included in the
above amount towards earnings.
13) In view of above, the total amount of compensation
comes to Rs.6,54,300/-.
14) Award passed by the Tribunal stands modified to that
extent only.
15) Award be drawn accordingly.
( NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.)
Kavita.
