Back
2015 Supreme(Bom) 919
In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
K.L. WADANE, J.
Rajan Banawali – Petitioner
Versus
Dinesh Shirodkar & Others – Respondent
First Appeal No. 23 of 2010
Decided on : 25-06-2015
For the Appellant :D. Pangam, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R2, S. Bharne, R4, U.R. Timble, Advocates.
The main legal point established is the consideration of proven income and appropriate compensation under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation - Section 163-A - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The claimant filed a petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation for injuries sustained in a road accident. The claimant was driving a vehicle when the front right side tire burst, causing an accident with another vehicle. The claimant sustained grievous injuries and incurred medical expenses. The respondents denied the claim and alleged negligence on the part of the claimant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the claimant proved his profession and monthly earnings, and partially allowed the appeal to modify the compensation amount based on the claimant's proven income.
Issues: The main issue was whether the claimant proved his profession and earnings, and the appropriate compensation amount.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the evidence of the claimant's earnings and referred to a Supreme Court case to determine the appropriate earnings of a driver in a similar context. The court modified the compensation based on the claimant's proven income and applicable multiplier.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the appeal and modified the compensation amount to Rs. 6,29,000, to be paid jointly and severally by the respondents.
1. The present appeal is preferred by the appellant dissatisfied with the amount of the compensation granted by the judgment and order dated 22.12.2009 passed by the Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for the Taluka of Salcete, at Margao(“Presiding Officer” for short) in Claim Petition no.163/2008.
2. Parties shall hereinafter referred to as per their original status in the claim petition.
3. The brief facts of the case may be stated as follows:-
Claimant filed the petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation based on structure formula.
On 29.8.2007, at about 03.30 hours, the claimant was proceeding from Mumbai to Margao. He was driving the vehicle namely Swaraj Mazda bearing no.GA-02-U-8686, owned by Shri Nooruddin Shaikh/respondent no.3. When he reached at Old Goa bypass road, all of a sudden the front right side tyre of the vehicle burst, as a result of which, the claimant lost control over the vehicle and met with an accident with another vehicle owned and driven by the respondent no.1, i.e. Tata Tipper truck bearing no.GA-02-T-6005.
4. In the accident the claimant sustained grievous injuries, i.e. head injury, liver laceration, cerebral contusion, chest injury and other injuries After the claimant was immediately taken to Goa Medical College Hospital, Bambolim and was discharged on 1.10.2007. He incurred expenditure of about Rs.50,000/- for medical treatment still he is not recovered from the injuries. The right side of the claimant has become numb and he is completely immobilized, being unable to use his right hand and right leg and he is also unable to speak properly and he is completely bedridden and has no limb movements as such. Due to the accident he was taking physiotherapy. He suffered a lot physically, mentally and economically. As a result, the claimant is permanently disabled and practically he is unable even to move.
5. At the time of the accident vehicle were insured with the respondent nos. 2 and 4 respectively.
6. At the time of accident the claimant was aged about 44 years and earning Rs.3000/- per month.
7. Thus the claimant has claimed total compensation of Rs. 6,50,000/- on all counts.
8. The respondent nos. 1 and 2 have submitted their written statement and denied almost all the material allegations in the petition. According to these respondents accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the claimant himself. Hence claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is not maintainable. Respondent no. 4 by way of its written statement has denied all the contents of the petition. It is also contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the claimants as well as the respondent no.1. Its liability is strictly limited to the terms and condition of the policy.
9. In the trial Court the claimant has examined in all five witnesses i.e AW1 Smt. Vandana Banawali, his power of attorney and wife to prove the contents of the petition. To prove his 100% disability he examined Dr. Xavier George Kocherry, as AW2, AW3- Smt. Disha Mapari, Investigating Officer, AW4 Shri Allan Fernandes, Physiotherapist and AW5 Shri Shaikh Noorudin to prove the salary and relied upon the salary certificate Exh. 51. As against this no oral evidence is adduced on behalf of the respondents.
10. I have heard the arguments of Mr. D. Pangam, learned counsel appearing for the claimant, Mr. S. Bharne, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2 and Mr. U. R. Timble learned Counsel appearing for the respondent no.4.
11. Mr. Pangam, learned counsel appearing for the claimant has stated that he is pressing the ground of the appeal only as regards to salary of the claimant therefore, the counsel appearing for the parties have concentrated their arguments only on the aspect of the salary of the claimant as on the date of the accident.
12. Looking to the short
