Case Note & Summary
The case arises from a motor accident claim where the original claimant, Deelip s/o Sidram Hanchate, suffered injuries due to the negligent driving of a jeep owned by the appellants (State of Maharashtra, through the District Fisheries & Development Officer, Osmanabad and others). The jeep was driven by Ramesh s/o Narayan Munde, an employee of the appellants, at excessive speed and in a negligent manner, causing the accident. The claimant sustained a fracture of the left S.C. Transcondylar femur, leading to 29% permanent disability as per the disability certificate Exh.61. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in M.A.C.P. No. 166 of 2008 awarded compensation of Rs.1,04,000/- to the claimant, comprising Rs.58,000/- for disability (at Rs.2000/- per percent), Rs.5,000/- for pain, and other expenses. The appellants challenged the award, arguing that the injuries were not of a permanent nature and that the medical officer was unaware of the Government gazette. The High Court examined the evidence, including medical records and the testimony of the employer (CW 4 Prabhakar Kashinath Sagar), which showed that the claimant worked as a supervisor requiring frequent movement, and his physical capacity was impaired. The court found that the disability assessment was based on the certificate Exh.61 and was in tune with the record. The court held that the compensation was just and proper, and dismissed the appeal with costs, directing that the original claimant is entitled to receive the amount subject to account.
Headnote
A) Motor Accident Claims - Compensation for Injury - Disability Assessment - The claimant suffered fracture of left S.C. Transcondylar femur resulting in 29% disability - The Tribunal awarded Rs.58,000/- for disability at Rs.2000/- per percent and Rs.5000/- for pain - The High Court held that the disability certificate Exh.61 did not call for criticism and the compensation was just and proper - Appeal dismissed with costs (Paras 3-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for injuries suffered by the claimant is excessive or requires reduction.
Final Decision
First appeal dismissed with costs. The original claimant is entitled to receive the amount subject to account.
Law Points
- Motor Accident Claims
- Compensation for Injury
- Disability Assessment
- Negligence
- Vicarious Liability
Case Details
2014 LawText (BOM) (01) 10
First Appeal No. 1765 of 2012
Mrs. M.S. Patni, A.G.P. for the appellants; Mr. A.N. Irpatgire, advocate for respondent
The District Fisheries & Development Officer, Osmanabad; Ramesh s/o Narayan Munde; The District Fisheries & Development Officer, Latur
Deelip s/o Sidram Hanchate
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
First appeal against award of compensation in a motor accident claim petition.
Remedy Sought
Appellants (State and its driver) sought reduction or setting aside of the compensation awarded to the claimant.
Filing Reason
Appellants challenged the award of Rs.1,04,000/- by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in M.A.C.P. No. 166 of 2008, arguing that the injuries were not permanent and the disability assessment was flawed.
Previous Decisions
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.1,04,000/- to the claimant for injuries suffered in a motor accident.
Issues
Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the injury suffered by the claimant is excessive or requires reduction.
Whether the disability assessment of 29% based on certificate Exh.61 is correct.
Submissions/Arguments
Learned A.G.P. for the appellants argued that the nature of injuries suffered by the original claimant is not of permanent caliber and that the medical officer supporting the injury certificate was unaware of the Government gazette.
The respondent/claimant contended that the disability was due to fracture of left S.C. Transcondylar femur and the compensation was just and proper.
Ratio Decidendi
The disability certificate Exh.61 showing 29% disability due to fracture of left S.C. Transcondylar femur did not call for criticism. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal was just and proper, and the appeal was dismissed.
Judgment Excerpts
The record illustrates that, original respondent No.2-employee of appellant, was driver of the jeep bearing No. MH-25-6096. It has been established that the jeep was driven in excessive speed and rather in negligent manner, which resulted into causing accident and original claimant suffering the injuries.
The assessment of evidence, including medical bills, treating the disability to be 29% based on certificate Exh.61 is in tune with the available record.
First appeal dismissed with costs. The original claimant is entitled to receive the amount subject to account.
Procedural History
The original claimant filed M.A.C.P. No. 166 of 2008 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, which awarded Rs.1,04,000/-. The appellants (State and driver) filed First Appeal No. 1765 of 2012 before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, challenging the award. The High Court heard the appeal and dismissed it with costs on 23rd January 2014.
Acts & Sections
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988:
