Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1688 (BOM)

Sayeedabi v. Sk. Amir Sk. Munnu

2015-07-27

A.P.BHANGALE

body2015
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. C.A. Joshi, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Mr. R.R. Raipure, learned Counsel for the Respondents. 2. Validity and legality of the Judgment and Order dt.20.10.2004 passed in Motor Accident Claims Petition No.258 of 2002 by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Akola is under challenge. The Tribunal was pleased to partly allow the Claim Application and awarded a sum of Rs.2,88,850/- only including no fault liability as compensation for the injuries suffered by the claimant together with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till realisation of the entire amount. The appellant/claimant is aggrieved by grant of less amount of compensation on the ground that due to the motor vehicle accident which occurred as a result of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of Luxury Bus bearing registration No.MH-30-E8252 on 15.7.2002, the claimant, who was a passenger therein, suffered injuries on her head, hand etc. and as a result of accident, she lost her left hand from shoulder joint as it had to be amputed. 3. According to the learned Counsel for the claimant, it is on record that she was earning Rs.1,500/- p. m. After deduction of expenses as a labourer (Mukadam) and considering that her age was 30 years as on the date of accident, compensation granted in the sum of Rs.2,88,830/- only is inadequate and unjust. According to the learned Counsel, for disability sustained, compensation in the sum of Rs.3,06,000/- ought to have been granted as fee of Dr. Raheman Khan was paid by the claimant in the sum of Rs.9,650/- , while she had to incur medical expenses in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and she also suffered humiliation, pain, suffering due to accident and that she should get non-pecuniary damages calculated at the sum of Rs.30,000/- including special diet required. Thus, according to the learned Counsel for the appellant, sum of Rs.3,95,650/- ought to have been granted as just and proper compensation particularly when claim in the sum of Rs.4,00,000/- was made before the Tribunal. Thus, balance sum of Rs.1,06,820/- ought to be awarded as submitted before this Court. 4. While, on the other hand, learned Counsel representing respondent no.3/Insurance Company opposed the appeal claiming enhanced compensation. Thus, balance sum of Rs.1,06,820/- ought to be awarded as submitted before this Court. 4. While, on the other hand, learned Counsel representing respondent no.3/Insurance Company opposed the appeal claiming enhanced compensation. None appeared on behalf of owner as well as driver of the offending motor vehicle i.e. Luxury Bus No.MH-30-8252, as a result of which the claimant had suffered injuries requiring continuous medical attention and treatment. It cannot be disputed that the claimant with occupation of labourer is unable to earn her living as a result of accident. In fact, she has suffered 100 % disability to earn her living as she could not now henceforth earn in the same manner as she was earning prior to the accident. Without going into the mathematical and logical details of compensation which may be claimable in such cases of claim on the basis of permanent disability, the contention advanced on behalf of the appellant is felt reasonable and just and therefore, in my opinion, balance sum of Rs.1,06,820/- ought to be paid as enhanced compensation to the appellant/claimant since no other appeal is filed either on behalf of the owner, driver or insurer. Hence, the appeal is allowed with the following modification. The respondents are now directed to jointly and severally pay the enhanced sum of Rs.1,06,820/- together with 9 % interest from the date of petition till realisation of the amount. The record and proceedings be sent back to the trial Court.