Bombay High Court
National Insurance Company Ltd., … vs Dineshkumar Mishrilal Vaishnav And Ors on 22 April, 2025
2025:BHC-AS:22027
P.H. Jayani 11 FA357.2024.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO. 357 OF 2024
National Insurance Company Ltd.
R/o. Cosmos Commercial Complex,
Near Anugraha Hotel Kolhapur
Policy No.61002/31/13/6300008706 ..... Appellant
Vs.
1) Shri. Dineshkumar Mishrilal Vaishnav
Age - 35 years, Occu. Service (At
present Nil), R/o. Shripad Nagar,
Behind Dr. Banarase Hospital,
Ichalkaranji, Tal. Ichalkaranji,
Dist. Kolhapur.
2) Shri. Sandip Krishnath Shinde
Age - Major, Occu. Business,
R/o. Khebvade, Tal. Karveer,
Dist. Kolhapur, Maharashtra
3) Shri. Anant Jotiram Bhosale
Age - Major, Occu. Driver,
R/o. Shinganwadi, Tal. Dharur,
Dist. Beed. ..... Respondents
Ms. D. Shalini Shankar for the Appellant.
Mr. Avesh Ghadge i/b. Mr. Akshay Kulkarni for Respondent No.1.
CORAM : SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.
DATED : 22nd APRIL, 2025.
JUDGMENT :
–
. Present Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 (“the Act”) has been directed against the Judgment and
1/11
::: Uploaded on – 15/05/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 17/05/2025 00:25:20 :::
P.H. Jayani 11 FA357.2024.doc
Award dated 03/03/2022, in M.A.C.P. No.22 of 2015 (“claim”),
passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ichalkaranji, Dist.
Kolhapur (“Tribunal”) thereby said claim filed under Section 166 of
the Act, was partly allowed with proportionate costs and Respondent
Nos.2, 3 and the Appellant (Original Opponent Nos.1, 2 and 3) held
jointly and severally liable to pay the Respondent No.1/Original
Claimant a sum of Rs.14,81,160/- along with interest @ 7% p.a. from
the date of filing of the claim till realization of the amount.
2) The learned Advocate for the parties submitted that the
Appellant has no statutory defence against Respondent No.2.
Therefore, the Appeal may be taken up for final hearing at the stage of
admission itself. For this purpose, compilation of documents is filed
by Ms. Shankar, the learned Advocate for the Appellant. Hence,
considering the facts of the case and the issues involved, the Appeal is
taken up for final hearing.
3) Heard Ms. Shankar, the learned Advocate for the
Appellant and Mr.Ghadge, the learned Advocate for Respondent no.1.
4) The facts in brief are that the claimant filed the said claim
therein it was averred that on 11/12/2014, at about 01:30 p.m., in
front of the office of Panchganga Sugar Mill, Korochi to Ichalkaranji
road, the claimant was proceeding on his Hero Honda motorcycle
bearing No.MH-09/CG-3977 (“M/cycle”). At that time, a motor truck
2/11
::: Uploaded on – 15/05/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 17/05/2025 00:25:20 :::
P.H. Jayani 11 FA357.2024.doc
bearing No. MH-09-7475 (“truck”) came from opposite side and gave
a dash to the M/cycle. As a result, the claimant sustained serious
injuries. Immediately, the claimant was removed to I.G.M. Hospital at
Ichalkaranji and then he was shifted to the hospital of Dr. Deshmukh.
It was averred that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent
driving by the driver of the truck. Therefore, Shahapur Police Station
registered an FIR bearing C.R.No.26/2014, under Sections 279, 337
and 338 of I.P.C. and Section 184 and 134 (a), (b) of the Act against
the driver of the truck.
4.1) It was averred that the claimant was aged 35 years. He
was doing cloth inspection work and serving at Harihar Weaving Mill,
Khanjire Estate, Shahapur, Ichalkaranji on a monthly salary of
Rs.18,000/-. In all, the claimant was getting income of Rs.2,17,280/-
per annum. The accidental injuries caused him disability, which
resulted in the loss of his income. The claimant, therefore, prayed to
award compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.
5) Respondent No.2 received the notice, but he did not file
his appearance, hence, he was proceeded against ex-parte. The
Appellant opposed the claim by filing the written statement (Exh.20).
The Appellant denied that the accident occurred due to rash and
negligent driving of the truck. It was denied that the claimant
sustained grievous injuries in the accident and said injuries caused
3/11
::: Uploaded on – 15/05/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 17/05/2025 00:25:20 :::
P.H. Jayani 11 FA357.2024.doc
him disability. It was contended that, in fact, the claimant himself
dashed the truck and thus, he was solely responsible for the accident.
In any case, this was a case of contributory negligence where the
claimant and the driver of the truck both were negligent in the ratio of
50:50. It was contended that the driver of the truck was not having
valid and effective driving license.
6) Hence, the Tribunal framed the issues. To prove the claim,
the claimant adduced his evidence on Affidavit (AW1/Exh.22). He
examined AW2-Sagar Sudhakar Jadhav, Inspector, Income Tax
Department (AW2/Exh.44) and Dr. Amit Deshmukh (AW3/Exh.51).
Beside, the claimant has relied upon various documents in evidence.
7) On appraisal of the oral and documentary evidence, the
Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent
driving of the truck. The claimant had sustained fracture to right
femur shaft with comminuted fracture to lower/distal end of right
radius/wrist (multiple piece of bone). The fractures caused the
claimant 30% permanent partial disability. The Income Tax Returns
(Exh.46) show that, in the financial year 2014-15/assessment year
2015-16, the net annual income of the claimant was Rs.2,86,700/-.
The claimant has suffered 30% loss of the income capacity on account
of said disability. Therefore, and considering the nature of the injuries
etc., the Tribunal awarded the compensation as under :-
4/11
::: Uploaded on – 15/05/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 17/05/2025 00:25:20 :::
P.H. Jayani 11 FA357.2024.doc
1. Rs.2,86,700 x 16 multiplier = Rs.13,76,160/-
Rs.45,87,200/- x 30% disability
2. Hospital bills and medicines (proved) Rs. 75,000/-
3. For Physical pains and agony Rs. 20,000/-
4. Conveyance and special diet Rs. 10,000/-
Total Rs.14,81,160/-
8) Ms. Shankar, the learned Advocate for the Appellant
submitted that in the financial year 2013-14/assessment year 2014-
15, the annual income of the Claimant was Rs.2,17,280/-, but the said
income increased after the accident even though the claimant has
suffered the disability. She submitted that the claimant has also
admitted that post accident, his income has been increased. She,
therefore, emphatically submitted that the disability did not result in
the loss of the future income/income capacity. As such, the Tribunal
should have declined to award the compensation towards the loss of
the future income. She submitted that the award under the other
heads is excessive. Ms. Shankar, therefore, urged that the impugned
Judgment and Award may be modified.
9) In contrast, Mr. Ghadge, the learned Advocate for the
claimant submitted that the Tribunal did not award any
compensation towards the future prospects. In fact, according to Mr.
Ghadge, the Tribunal failed to quantify the award in accordance with
catena of decision in the field of injury claims and the decision in
5/11
::: Uploaded on – 15/05/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 17/05/2025 00:25:20 :::
P.H. Jayani 11 FA357.2024.doc
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others1 and R.D.
Hattangadi V/s. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. 2 Mr. Ghadge submitted
that, if the principles enunciated in the said decision applied to the
case on hand, then it cannot be said that the awarded amount is
exorbitant.
10) Insofar as the accident is concerned, there is nothing on
record to take an exception to the finding recorded by the Tribunal
that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the
truck. In fact, the FIR was registered only against the driver of the car,
who ultimately stood chargesheeted for causing the accident by
driving the car rash and negligently. Despite opportunity, the
Appellant did not examine the driver of the car to rebut the evidence
of the claimant. As such, an adverse inference is permissible. In view
thereof, I am in agreement with the finding recorded by the Tribunal
that the accident occurred due to negligent driving of the car.
11) AW2-Dr. Deshmukh is the medical practitioner who
medically treated the claimant. He deposed that the claimant had
suffered the aforesaid injuries due to the accident. Evidence of AW2
coupled with the Medico-legal Certificate (Exh.29) indicates that
AW2 fixed the fracture with implant and nailing. AW2 deposed that
there is terminal restrictions on movements of the wrist. The claimant
1. 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC)
2. AIR 1995 SC 755
6/11
::: Uploaded on – 15/05/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 17/05/2025 00:25:20 :::
P.H. Jayani 11 FA357.2024.doc
has difficulty in squatting, walking, sitting cross-legged, weight
bearing and slight limping problem. AW2 deposed that thus, the
claimant has suffered total 30% disability, which includes 10%
disability for upper extremity and 20% for lower extremity.
Accordingly, he issued the Disability Certificate (Exh.57). The
aforesaid evidence did not meet sufficient challenge in the cross-
examination of AW2. Therefore, the Tribunal is right in accepting the
disability. Ms. Shankar, the leaned Advocate has not disputed the
disability.
12) Now turning to the question of the loss of the income on
account of the disability. In this regard the evidence of the claimant is
that he has been doing the cloth inspection work in the private Mill
and thereby earning a monthly salary of Rs.18,000/-, as above. In all,
he was getting income of Rs.2,17,280/- per annum. He suffered a
financial loss on account of the disability. In the cross-examination,
the claimant admitted that as per his income tax returns, his income
increased after the accident. The evidence of AW2 is that, as per the
Income tax Return for the financial year 2013-2014/Assessment year
2014-2015 (Exh.45), the claimant’s income was Rs.2,17,280/-. As per
the Income tax Return for the financial year 2014-2015/Assessment
year 2015-2016 (Exh.46), his income was Rs.2,86,670/-, which return
was submitted on 04/07/2015, i.e., after the accident. Thus, it is
7/11
::: Uploaded on – 15/05/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 17/05/2025 00:25:20 :::
P.H. Jayani 11 FA357.2024.doc
evident that although the claimant has suffered the disability, it did
not reduce his income capacity. Nevertheless, it cannot be ignored
that the disability restricted various important actions of the
claimant’s body. The claimant has suffered fracture of the femur
bone, which is very important part of a human body as it helps the
body in many ways.
13) In the judgment Sandeep Khanuja Vs. Atul Dande3, it is
held that, “………it is now a settled principle, repeatedly stated and
restated time and again by this Court, that in awarding compensation
the multiplier method is logically sound and legally well established.
This method, known as ‘principle of multiplier’, has been evolved to
quantify the loss of income as a result of death or permanent
disability suffered in an accident”. …. It is observed that, “The
multiplier system is based on the doctrine of equity, equality and
necessity. A departure therefrom is to be done only in rare and
exceptional case”.
14) It is a settled law that money cannot bring back or restore
the physical frame that has been lost to the accidental injuries.
Therefore, what the Tribunal and Court can do is to award sums
which must be regarded as ‘just compensation’. In the process of
deciding ‘just compensation’, there must be the endeavour to secure
3. 2017 (1) TAC 673 (SC)
8/11
::: Uploaded on – 15/05/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 17/05/2025 00:25:20 :::
P.H. Jayani 11 FA357.2024.doc
some uniformity in the general method of approach. In personal
injury cases the Courts should not conceive and award merely token
damages but they should grant substantial amount which could be
regarded as ‘just compensation’. The general principle which should
govern the assessment of damages in personal injury cases is that the
Court should award to injured person such a sum of money as will put
him in the same position as he would have been in if he had not
sustained the injuries. But, it is manifest that no award of money can
possibly compensate an injured man and renew a shattered human
frame. Compensation is given only for what is lost due to accident in
terms of an equivalent in money insofar as the nature of money
admits for the loss sustained. In an accident, if a person loses a limb
or eye or sustains an injury, the Court while computing damages for
the loss of organs or physical injury, does not value a limb or eye in
isolation, but only values totality of the harm which the loss has
entailed: the loss of amenities of life and infliction of pain and
suffering; the loss of the good things of life, joys of life and the
positive infliction of pain and distress.
15) In the case in hand, considering the fact that the claimant
can do his job, the disability suffered by him is not more than 21%
with reference to his whole body. However, it cannot be ignored that,
the claimant was aged 35 years. Therefore, he should tolerate that
9/11
::: Uploaded on – 15/05/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 17/05/2025 00:25:20 :::
P.H. Jayani 11 FA357.2024.doc
disability and related pain, throughout his life. The disability will
certainly interfere with his enjoyment of the life. There is no evidence
that the claimant was in permanent employment. Therefore, in the
facts of this case, applying the multiplier method to determine the
‘just compensation’ would be helpful.
16) There is nothing on record to doubt the I.T. Returns
produced in the evidence and proved by the claimant and AW2.
Therefore, there is no hurdle to accept that the claimant’s net income
was Rs.2,86,670/-. In accordance with the decision in the case of
Pranay Sethi (supra), 40% income should be added towards the
future prospects of the claimant. As such, his net actual yearly income
will be Rs.4,01,338/-. Considering the nature of the injuries and the
difficulties it caused, the permanent partial disability suffered by the
claimant is 21% as noted above. The applicable multiplier is ’16’.
Accordingly, the claimant should get award of Rs.13,48,495/- towards
the said 21 % disability. This amount is almost close to the amount
awarded by the Tribunal towards the disability. The compensation
awarded under the others heads is not on higher side. On the
contrary, the compensation granted for ‘pain and suffering’ appears
less. No compensation is conceived and awarded for the loss of the
amenities of the life due to the disability. I, therefore, hold that the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not excessive or exorbitant.
10/11
::: Uploaded on – 15/05/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 17/05/2025 00:25:20 :::
P.H. Jayani 11 FA357.2024.doc
17) Conspectus of the above discussion is that there is no
substance in the Appeal thereby warranting an interference in the
impugned Judgment and Award to reduce the compensation. As a
result, the Appeal is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed,
accordingly.
17.1) In views of the peculiar facts of the case, the parties shall
bear their own costs.
PREETI HEERO JAYANI (SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.) Digitally signed by PREETI HEERO JAYANI Date: 2025.05.15 14:29:37 +0530 11/11 ::: Uploaded on - 15/05/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 17/05/2025 00:25:20 :::