Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 6514
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J
BHIMRAJ ANNASAHEB DESHMUKH – Appellant
Versus
SHRINIWAS LAXMINARAYAN BIHANI AND ANR – Respondent
FA 4350 / 2017
Mr. Vinayak S. Bedre, Advocate for the appellants; Mr. Mohit R. Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent No.2
The court established that notional income for compensation must reflect reasonable earnings and include future prospects, correcting the Tribunal's inadequate assessment.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 173 - Appeal against compensation awarded by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Appellant challenges the inadequacy of compensation awarded for injuries sustained in an accident involving a tanker. (Paras 4, 5)
(B) Compensation - Assessment of notional income - Tribunal assessed notional income at Rs.3,000/- per month, which was found inadequate; the court relied on precedent to determine a reasonable income of Rs.6,500/- per month. (Paras 7, 8)
(C) Future Prospects - The Tribunal failed to consider future prospects in the income calculation, which is necessary for just compensation. (Paras 8, 10)
(D) Disability Assessment - The Tribunal correctly assessed functional disability at 30% despite evidence of 60% permanent disability. (Paras 9)
Facts of the case:
The appellant sustained grievous injuries in an accident on 7th April, 2015, while riding a bicycle, leading to a claim for Rs.7,00,000/- due to loss of income as a vegetable seller. The Tribunal awarded Rs.2,72,000/-, which the appellant contested as inadequate.
Findings of Court:
The court modified the Tribunal's award, enhancing the compensation to Rs.2,72,100/- with interest at 8% p.a.
Issues: The main issues included the adequacy of the compensation awarded and the assessment of notional income and future prospects.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Tribunal erred in assessing notional income and failing to consider future prospects, emphasizing the need for just compensation based on established precedents.
Result: Appeal partly allowed, enhancing compensation to Rs.2,72,100/-.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard. 2. Admit.
3. Heard finally with the consent of learned advocates for the appearing parties.
4. By this appeal, filed under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the appellant – claimant challenges Judgment and Award dated 22nd February, 2017 passed by learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shrirampur in MACP No. 215 of 2015 and seeks enhancement of compensation.
5. Facts, in nutshell, can be stated thus -
On 7th April, 2015 at about 11.00 a.m., appellant was proceeding on his bicycle from Chitali to Shrirampur and when he reached near village Nimgaon Khairi, tanker No. MH-17/T-8231 came from Nimgaon Khairi side and gave dash to the bicycle of the appellant from behind. In the accident, appellant sustained grievous injuries to his right hand and right leg. He was shifted to Sakhar Kamgar Hospital, Shrirampur. Police registered Crime No. I-53 of 2015 against the driver of the offending tanker. Appellant filed claim contending that he was a vegetable seller and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, he is unable to carry out his vegetable selling business and he, therefore, claimed compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- Opponent No.1 – owner of the offending tanker, opposed the claim, by filing written statement, contending that the driver of the offending tanker was holding valid and effective driving licence and the tanker was insured with opponent No.2.
Opponent No.2 – Insurer, opposed the claim by filing written statement, contending that there is non compliance of mandatory provision of sections 134 (c) and 156 (8) of the Motor Vehicles Act and the accident has taken place due to the negligence of the appellant. Breach of conditions of the insurance policy was also claimed.
The Tribunal, after recording evidence, partly allowed the claim and directed the respondents – opponents to jointly and severally pay compensation of Rs.2,72,000/- along with 8% interest p.a. The appellant – claimant is aggrieved by the inadequate compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
6. Heard learned advocate for the appellant and learned advocate for respondent No. 2- insurer. None appeares for respondent No.1, though served. Perused the record.
7. The Tribunal has assessed notional income of the appellant at Rs.3,000/- per month. It is not in dispute that the appellant is a vegetable seller. Learned advocate for the appellant has placed reliance on “ Sayed Sadiq Etc V/s Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company ” 2014 (2) SCC 735 , In the said case, claimant had suffered injury in the accident occurred in 2008 and he was a vegetable vendor (same like that of the present appellant). The Apex Court, has assessed his notional income at Rs.6,500/- per month, holding that he was not expected to produce documents to prove his monthly income and it would be reasonable to take his earning at Rs.6,500/- per month. The Apex Court also awarded future prospects to the claimant.
8. Appellant in the present matter is similarly situated. Indeed, in the case in hand, the Tribunal has erred in assessing notional income of the appellant at Rs.3,000/- per month, which in the light of the aforesaid rulling needs to be taken at Rs.6,500/- per month. The Tribunal has failed to add component of future prospects in the income of the appellant, while awarding compensation, which is payable to the claimant in the light of the decisions in Sayed Sadiq (supra), “T. J. Parameshwarappa @ Parameshwarappa @ J. T. Parmeshwarappa @ Talakena Godra Parameshwarapp V/s Branch Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited and Others” 2022 (11) JT 378 and “ Sidram V/s Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited and Another ” (2023) 3 SCC 439 .
9. In the case in hand, though as per the evidence of PW-2 Dr. Bhagwat Gangadhar Murade, appellant has suffered 60% permanent disability, the Tribunal has assessed functional disability of appellant at 30%, rightly so.
10. In view of aforesaid, the appellant is entitled for f
