[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Jairam Sakharam Karhale vs M/S Saikripa Transport Co And Anr on 6 March, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:9397
FA-352-2014
-1-
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 352 OF 2014
Jairam S/o. Sakharam Karhale,
Age : 47 years, Occu. : Nil,
R/o. Watkali, Tq. Sengaon,
Dist. Hingoli. ... Appellant.
(Orig. Claimant)
Versus
1. M/s. Saikripa Transport Company,
Through its partner - Ravindra Bhalekar,
Age : Major, Occu. : Business,
C/o. Anilkumar Construction Company,
Opposite Neharu Garden, Tilak Path,
Nasik.
2. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
City Branch Office - I, Plot No.44/1, 4th
Street, MIDC Satpur, Nasik
(Notice to be served on the Branch Manager,
Oriental Insurance Company, Parbhani. ... Respondent.
(Orig. Respondents)
.....
Mr.Ashish Deshmukh h/f. Mr.Majit Shaikh, Advocate for Appellant.
Mr. D. P. Deshpande, Advocate for Respondent No.2 - Insurance
Company.
.....
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
RESERVED ON : 26 FEBRUARY 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 06 MARCH 2026
JUDGMENT :
1. Original claimants in M.A.C.P. No.237 of 2000 (Old
M.A.C.P. No.150/1999) are dissatisfied by inadequate compensation
in injury claim sought by invoking section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act.
FA-352-2014
2. In short, appellant instituted above claim petition, on the
premise that, on 18.05.1998, while he was working as Supervisor in
construction company on Arni - Mahur Road, near village
Shendursani, a driver of the truck bearing No.MWN-2295, owned by
respondent no.1, was rash and negligent in driving and he gave dash
to the claimant and even drove the wheel of the truck over his leg
causing him facture injury. A rod was required to be inserted in the
leg, and as he lost income for above period and was required to spend
on medical expenses, a claim was set up under various heads.
The above claim was resisted by respondent nos.1 and 2.
After appreciating the respective cases, learned Tribunal partly
allowed the claim and awarded Rs.55,000/- inclusive of NFL with
interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
3. Dissatisfied by the quantum, claimant has come up in
appeal, stating that, he has suffered permanent disability to the
extent of 30%. That, though an attempt was taken before the Lok
Adalat, there was no final award. However, precisely such event has
been taken into consideration by learned Tribunal and awarded
meager amount of compensation. That, there is incorrect assessment
of the claimant's income and injuries. That, no amount is granted for
medical expenses, pain and suffering, special diet, attendant and
FA-352-2014
conveyance charges, loss of amenities as well as future medical
expenses.
4. Learned counsel Shri Deshpande for respondent
Insurance Company would strongly opposed on the ground that
parties have participated in the Lok Adalat and claimant had agreed
to accept Rs.45,000/-. Mere formality of approving the award before
the learned Tribunal had remained, but claimant did not turn up and
therefore award was not finalized. Thus, according to him, quantum
awarded by learned Tribunal, is in the above backdrop, just and
proper and needs no enhancement.
5. Admittedly, instant appeal is a result of injury claim on
account of alleged road traffic accident dated 18.05.1998 i.e. while
claimant was allegedly given dash by driver of the truck and he
suffered fracture injury. In support of the case, he placed on record
documentary evidence i.e. spot panchanama, FIR, statement of one
Sakharam and an eye witness. Learned Tribunal has taken the same
into account and has also accepted that there was insertion of rod in
the leg and thereby held that there is no reason to disbelieve the
claimant's averments. However, thereafter while answering issue
nos.3 to 6, learned Tribunal seems to have dealt with compromise
pursis (Exh.19) and considering the quantum agreed to be taken to
FA-352-2014
the tune of Rs.45,000/-, granted an amount of Rs.55,000/-. Therefore,
prima facie, learned Tribunal has only considered the papers placed
before the Lok Adalat, which admittedly were not finalized.
6. Though claimant, in support of loss of income and future
medical expenses has not set up any evidence, the learned Tribunal
has rightly granted the compensation. However, as pointed out, there
is no grant of compensation under the head of pain and suffering,
attendant charges, special diet and medical expenses allegedly
incurred. True it is that, there is no distinct evidence to that extent,
however, the learned Tribunal ought to have granted at least
lumpsum amount. Therefore, the same is required to be granted by
partly allowing the appeal. Hence, the following order is passed :
ORDER
(i) The First Appeal is partly allowed.
(ii) The clause No. [2] of the operative part of the judgment
and award dated 29.09.2005 passed by Ex-Officio Member,
M.A.C.T. Hingoli in M.A.C.P. No.237 of 2000, is hereby modified
to the following effect :-
"[2] The respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall jointly or
severally pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One
Lakh Only) in lumpsum, including an amount of
Rs.25,000/- towards NFL granted u/s 140 of the Motor
FA-352-2014
Vehicle Act to the petitioner/original claimant along with
interest at the rate of 6% per annum, from the date of
petition till realization of amount, with proportionate
costs."
(iii) The difference of compensation be deposited within a
period of six weeks.
(iv) Original claimant is permitted to withdraw the amount,
with accrued interest, if any.
(v) Modified award be prepared accordingly.
(vi) Rest of the judgment and award shall remain intact.
(ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.)
Tandale
