KAILAS POPAT JACHAKversusDR. VASINODDIN BADDRUDDIN SHAIKH AND ANR.

                                                                                         902-FA-1643-2006.doc


                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

           Digitally signed
           by SATISH
           RAMCHANDRA
                                                  FIRST APPEAL NO.1643 OF 2006
SATISH     SANGAR
RAMCHANDRA
SANGAR     Date:
           2026.09.21
           18:44:42
           +0530

                              1.     Kailash Popat Jachak,                              ]
                                     Age : 37 Years, Occupation : Agriculturist,        ]
                                     Residing at : At and Post : Pathardi,              ]
                                     Taluka and District : Nashik.                      ] ...Appellant

                                              Versus

                              1.     Dr.Vasinoddin Baddruddin Shaikh,                   ]
                                     Major, Occupation : Doctor,                        ]
                                     Residing at : Opp. Renuka Shopping Centre,         ]
                                     Wadala Naka, Nashik.                               ]

                              2.     The Manager,                                       ]
                                     National Assurance Co., Limited, 7,                ]
                                     Nadbrahma, Mahatma Nagar, Trimbak Road,            ]
                                     Nashik : 422 007.                                  ] ...Respondents

                              ====================================================

                              Mr.Vivek Rane            i/b.    Mr.A.R. Advocate for Appellant.
                              Kapadnis:-
                              Ms.Poonam Mittal:-                       Advocate for Respondent No.2–
                                                                       Insurance Company.

                              ====================================================
                                                              CORAM     :    S. M. MODAK, J.
                                                              DATE      :    17th SEPTEMBER 2026
                              ORAL JUDGMENT :-

                              1.     The only point argued in this Appeal is about ‘appreciation of

                              evidence about the income of the Appellant being an Agriculturist’ and

                              Satish Sangar                                                                1/6
                                                      902-FA-1643-2006.doc


second, ‘whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal–Nashik

(“Tribunal”) was right in refusing compensation on account of loss of

future earning’. The Tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of

Rs.1,57,850/- under different heads. (Paragraph No.19 of the Award.

However, in direction No.2, it is typed as Rs.1,57,580/-. It appears to

be typing mistake). So far as these heads are concerned, the Appellant

is not aggrieved.

2.     On this background, I have heard learned Advocate Shri.Rane

holding for learned Advocate Shri.Kapadnis and learned Advocate

Ms.Mittal for the Respondent No.2–Insurance Company.

3.     The Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal–Nashik as per the

Award dated 21st December 2005 held ‘the negligence of driver of the

car’. It was owned by Respondent No.1 and insured with the

Respondent No.2. The Appellant was driving the motorcycle and the

accident took place on 13th November 2001 at about 2.00 p.m. He was

standing by the side of road at Wadhorli turn on Nashik–Trimbak

Road. At that time, a car came in high speed and gave dash to the

motorcycle. There is damage to the motorcycle, so also, injuries to the

Appellant. He was hospitalized initially in Civil Hospital and then in

Suyash Hospital. The certificate issued by the Civil Hospital is on Page


Satish Sangar                                                           2/6
                                                                     902-FA-1643-2006.doc


No.37. There is one injury to right leg fracture of right TPR Fabula.

He was also operated at Suyash Hospital. There is disability certificate

at Exhibit–32. It is issued by the District Hospital–Nashik. The doctor

has opined 30% permanent disability. It is as follows:-

Shortening of R leg 1”                                                      10%
Restricted Mov of Knee R upto 90°                                           10%
Restricted Mov of R hip                                                     10%
Total final Permanent Disability:-                                          30%

4.      Admittedly, the doctor who has issued the Disability Certificate

is not examined. The documents which the Appellant has produced

during his chief-examination is referred in paragraph No.4 of his

Affidavit. I have gone through the cross-examination. I do not find

there is challenge to the Disability Certificate. Ms.Mittal submitted that

as observed in case of Raj Kumar V/s. Ajay Kumar and Another 1, the

doctor needs to be examined. Mr.Rane relied upon the observations in

case of Vinayak s/o Bapu Ghegade V/s. Shivahi s/o Sadashiv Bandal

and Another2.

5.      In paragraph No.17, the Tribunal has observed:-

        “The Petitioner has claimed Compensation of Rs.2,25,000/-
        towards permanent Disablement caused to the Petitioner.
        However, as he has sustained Thirty per cent Permanent and

1    (2011) 1 SCC 343
2    First Appeal No.733 of 2024 : 8th May 2025 : High Court of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad

Satish Sangar                                                                            3/6
                                                         902-FA-1643-2006.doc


       Final Disablement, he is entitled for Compensation of
       Rs.30,000/- which includes Compensation for shock, pain and
       suffering etc.”.

However, in paragraph No.18, the Tribunal has said that:-

       “he is not entitled for compensation towards loss of income or
       supervisory cost.”

The income is from agriculture. However, the agricultural land does

not stand in the name of the Appellant. The 7X12 extract at Exhibit–

36 are produced. That is why, the Tribunal observed that, “The

Appellant was neither cultivating nor supervising the agricultural

lands”. In the cross-examination, the questions were put to the

Appellant. The half of the land is lying fallow. He has no documentary

evidence to show his income.

6.     So for two reasons compensation on account of ‘loss of income’

is denied. One, he could not substantiate the income from agriculture

and second, there is no clear finding about physical and functional

disability. In fact, the Tribunal ought to have given a finding about

both type of disabilities.

7.     After hearing them, I conclude that there is no 30% disability but

it can certainly be to the extent of 20% functional disability. Because, if

there is shortening of leg, certainly it will cause trouble to the


Satish Sangar                                                              4/6
                                                                      902-FA-1643-2006.doc


Appellant while working in agricultural field. Even though doctor is

not examined, during cross-examination of Claimant, disability is not

challenged. With this line of cross, the Claimant has not examined the

doctor.

8.      Now, coming to the income, Mr.Rane relied upon observations

in case of Jagdish Narayan V/s. Karan Singh and Ors.3, wherein the

Supreme Court applied the principle of ‘notional income’ for coolie

and considered ‘monthly income’ of Rs.4,500/-. The Tribunal ought to

have applied the test of ‘notional income’, if he is agriculturist. I think

he ought to have given at least Rs.6,000/- per month, because I have

seen various agricultural crops are taken from those lands. Being son of

the owner of the land, he must be doing some work and earning some

income. I quantified to Rs.6,000/- per month. Considering his age, the

future prospects comes to 20%. That is how, now the compensation on

account of ‘loss of future income’ is calculated as follows:-

Rs.6,000/- (Income) X 20% (Future prospects) =                          Rs.1200/-
Multiplier 16:-
Rs.1200/-X12X16/-                                                    Rs.2,30,400/-
                                        Received amount:-            Rs.1,57,850/-
                                      Enhanced amount:-               Rs.72,550/-


3    Civil Appeal No….. of 2026 @ Special Leave Petition (C) No.18945 of 2024 : Supreme
     Court of India : 7th July 2026

Satish Sangar                                                                             5/6
                                                        902-FA-1643-2006.doc


9.     Hence, the following order is passed:-

                             -: O R D E R :-

(a)    The Appeal is allowed.
(b)    The Respondents are directed to pay Rs.72,550/- to the
       Appellant within a period of 12 weeks from passing of the
       order along with interest at the rate of 7.5%.
(c)    Additional Court fee be paid before the Tribunal.

10.    In the light of the above observations, the Appeal is disposed of.



                                      [S. M. MODAK, J.]




Satish Sangar                                                             6/6