Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
G.S. PATEL, J.
Mahavir Sampat Keskar - Appellant
Versus
Suresh Krishnaji Deshpande & Ors. - Respondents
First Appeal No. 493 of 2013
Decided On : 09-06-2017
Motor Accident - Compensation - 1.30 a.m. on Keskarwadi to Bhalvani Road in front of Chandrabhaga Sugar Factor, Bhalvani, Taluka Pandharpur - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 166 - The evidence indicates that it was the Padmini car that attempted to overtake the tractor, and it was during this overtaking attempt that the car collided with Keskar's motorcycle. The driver of the Premier Padmini was responsible for the accident. The disability must be assessed on multiple factors, including the nature of occupation or employment of the injured. The disability must be assessed by seeing whether, as a result of that disability, the injured is able at all to perform the job or vocation for which he is trained or in which he is skilled. The disability must be assessed by seeing whether, as a result of that disability, the injured is able at all to perform the job or vocation for which he is trained or in which he is skilled. The disability must be assessed by seeing whether, as a result of that disability, the injured is able at all to perform the job or vocation for which he is trained or in which he is skilled. The amount awarded by the Tribunal was considerably higher than the claim as originally made and, before the Tribunal, Keskar in fact reduced his claim to Rs. 5,00,000/-.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a motor accident on Keskarwadi to Bhalvani Road in front of Chandrabhaga Sugar Factor, Bhalvani, Taluka Pandharpur. Keskar, the Applicant, was traveling on a motorcycle with his friend Rameshwar Chavan when a Premier Padmini car attempted to overtake a tractor and collided with Keskar's motorcycle, resulting in serious injuries to both Keskar and Chavan.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the driver of the Premier Padmini car was responsible for the accident due to rash and negligent driving. The court also found that Keskar sustained permanent disability due to the accident and was entitled to compensation.
Issues: The issues included proving sustained injuries in the motor accident, permanent disability, entitlement to compensation, and the amount and liable party for compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the driver of the Premier Padmini car was responsible for the accident and that the disability must be assessed based on the injured person's ability to perform their job or vocation. The court also emphasized that the amount awarded as compensation can exceed the originally claimed amount if it results in a just outcome.
Final Decision: The court awarded compensation of Rs. 18,93,367/- to be paid by the insurer of the Premier Padmini car, Opponents Nos. 1 and 2, jointly and severally. The court also ordered an interest rate of 7% per annum on the awarded amount.
G.S. PATEL, J.
1. Admit.
2. By consent, taken up for hearing and final disposal on the basis of the papers on record in the Appeal paper-book and annexed to the Civil Application.
3. The Appeal is directed against an order and judgment dated 29th June 2011 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pandharpur. The Appellant ("Keskar") is the original Applicant. In this appeal, he seeks enhancement of the compensation awarded. There were two individuals arrayed as Opponents Nos. 1 and 3 to the claim. Opponents Nos. 2 and 4 were, respectively, the insurers of Opponents Nos. 1 and 3.
4. This is how the matter arises. Opponent No. 1 ("Deshpande") owned a Premier Padmini No. MH-21-B-0074. This was insured with the United Insurance Co Ltd, Opponent No. 2. Opponent No. 3 ("Lokare") owned an Escort Tractor No. MH- 13-J-8695, and this was insured with the Oriental Insurance Co Ltd, Opponent No. 4.
5. On 17th January 2008 at about 10.00 a.m. Keskar, the Applicant, was travelling from Keskarwadi to Bhalvani, Taluka Pandharpur on a motorcycle. Keskar was driving the motorcycle. His friend Rameshwar Chavan ("Chavan") was riding pillion. Keskar claimed he was riding along at a moderate speed, obeying all traffic rules. As they reached the Chandrabhaga Sugar Factory, a tractor with two trailers loaded with sugar cane was approaching from the opposite direction. At the same time, a Premier Padmini motor car, owned by Deshpande, attempted to overtake the tractor. This means that the Padmini and the tractor were both on the same side of the road, and both were in an oncoming direction, i.e., toward Keskar's motorcycle. As a result of the Padmini's overtaking manoeuvre, it collided with Keskar's motorcycle and knocked both down. The tractor could not stop in time. It ran over Keskar's right leg, fracturing it. Keskar's friend and fellow traveller Chavan was also injured in his right knee.
6. Keskar's claim was that the accident was due to the rash driving and negligence of both drivers, i.e., Deshpande driving Premier Padmini, and Lokare was driving the tractor. A crime bearing No. 12/08 was registered by the police, but only against Deshpande, the driver of the Premier Padmini.
7. Keskar was taken to the Sub-District Hospital, Pandharpur. Later that day, he was shifted to Ashwini Sahakari Rugnalaya and Research Center at Solapur. He was hospitalized for 20 to 30 days. His leg had to be operated. Ultimately it was amputated above the knee. Keskar incurred medical expenses of Rs. 2,25,000/- for this surgery and procedure. At the time of the claim, he said he was still undergoing treatment. He also made a claim for mental agony and distress.
8. At the relevant time, Keskar was employed as a driver by one Rajaram Mane ("Mane"). Keskar claimed that his salary was Rs 4,000/-, excluding allowances. He also said that it was his ambition to one day own and ply his own vehicle. The disability resulting from this accident rendered him not only jobless but permanently disabled and unable to work or take employment as a driver. Initially, Keskar claimed compensation of Rs. 8,15,000/-. Before the Tribunal he restricted his claim to Rs. 5 lakhs. Deshpande filed his Written Statement at Exhibit 28. He claimed that at the time of the accident it was not Keskar but Chavan who was driving the motorcycle and Keskar was riding pillion. Deshpande said that the tractor in question, being driven by Lokare, abruptly and without warning turned to the right. Keskar's friend Chavan collided with the tractor and both Keskar and Chavan fell. This was when, according to Deshpande, the collision with his Premier Padmini occurred. Deshpande's claim was that the accident and injury were, therefore, the result of Keskar's or, at any rate, his friend Chavan's negligence. He, therefore, said neither he nor his insurer was liable to pay any amount.
9. Deshpande's insurer, the Un
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
