fa2025.18

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

FIRST APPEAL NO.2025 OF 2018

Shivshanker S/o Sakharam Pawar,

Age-65 years, Occu:Advocate,

R/o-Lokmanya Nagar, Parbhani

...APPELLANT

(Orig. Claimant)

VERSUS

Maharashtra State Road Transport

Corporation,

Through its District Controller,

Office at Gangakhed Road,

Parbhani.

...RESPONDENT

(Orig. Respondent)

...

Mr.P.C. Mayure Advocate for Appellant.

Mr.A.D. Wange Advocate for Respondent.

...

CORAM: ANIL S. KILOR, J.

DATE : 17^th MARCH, 2021

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1.

The present appeal is filed by the claimant for

enhancement of compensation granted by the Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal, Parbhani in M.A.C. Petition No. 420 of 2016 vide

fa2025.18

2

Judgment dated 26^th April 2018, to the tune of Rs.1,70,000/-

(including no-fault liability amount of Rs.25,000/-) along with

interest at the rate of 7% p.a. from the date of petition till

realization of the entire compensation amount.

2.

I have heard learned respective counsel for the

parties.

3.

The brief facts of the present case are that, the

claimant who is an advocate by profession, was travelling on

15th February 2016, to attend a funeral of his relative at village

Kapadsinghi, in a State Transport bus bearing No. MH-20-D-

9852. When the said bus was crossing a broken bridge near

Kapadsinghi, it gave unexpected jerk and due to which the

claimant sustained severe injuries. The claimant was, therefore,

required to shift to primary health center, Kapadsinghi. But

looking to the nature of injuries, he was referred to Parbhani in

the hospital of Dr. Navandar, who treated him during the period

from 15^th February 2016 to 21^st February 2016 for injuries to L1

vertebrae compression fracture without neurodeficit and

continuous pain. The doctor has certified the disability to the

extent of 40%, caused due to said accident. However, the

fa2025.18

3

claimant claimed the compensation on the ground that he is not

able to now practice as an advocate and therefore, there is

100% loss of earning capacity.

4.

The learned Tribunal after considering the oral as well

as documentary evidence on record, granted an amount of

Rs.1,70,000/- including no-fault liability towards compensation

along with interest.

5.

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant

submits that the learned Tribunal has committed error in not

considering that the appellant used to attend court cases in

various courts and he was a standing counsel for M.S.R.T.C.,

United Insurance Company and Zila Parishad, Parbhani and now

because of disability he is not able to travel outside Parbhani and

attend the court cases in other cities, which he used to do prior

to the accident.

6.

It is further submitted that the fact that M.S.R.T.C. is

not engaging him in any matters because of his disability, is

sufficient to show that the claimant has lost his 100% earning

capacity after the accident.

fa2025.18

4

7.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent –

M.S.R.T.C. submits that the compensation granted by the

learned Tribunal is just and fair and the said amount was granted

by the Tribunal after considering the case of the claimant about

his disability to earn due to the impact of the accident.

8.

He submits that the learned Tribunal has considered

the evidence produced on record, showing that the appellant is

still attending the cases in various courts outside Parbhani and

the appellant is not living a restricted life as he has alleged in the

claim petition.

9.

Learned counsel for respondent further states that,

whether to engage a lawyer in a case or not is a prerogative of

the client and if the M.S.R.T.C. is not e