ATISH SHIVAJI KAMBLEversusDHANANJAY NIVRUTI KARPURE AND ORS

2026:BHC-AUG:28800


                                                             959 FA NO. 2294 OF 2021.odt


                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD
                              959 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2294 OF 2021

                 1.   Atish Shivaji Kamble
                      Age: 26 years, Occu: Nil
                      R/o Bhadgaon, Tq. And Dist. Latur        ..Appellant
                                                              (Orig. Claimant)
                      VERSUS

                 1.   Dhananjay S/o Nivrutti Karpure
                      Age: 36 years, Occu: Driver,
                      R/o Peth-Ter, Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad

                 2.   Sachidanand S/o Bhagwantrao Randive,
                      Age: Major, Occu: Business
                      R/o Sarola, Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad

                 3.   United India Insurance Com. Ltd.
                      Through Its Branch Manager,
                      Shivaji Chowk, Ambajogai Road,
                      Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur                ..Respondents
                                                            (Orig. Respondents)
                                                 ...
                 Mr. Satish S. Manale, Advocate for Appellant
                 Mr. Mahendra B. Kolpe, Advocate for respondent No.1
                 Mr. Vinodkumar R. Mundada, Advocate for respondent No.3
                                                 ….

                                   CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.
                                     DATE : 02.07.2026
                 PER COURT :-

                 1.       This appeal is preferred against the judgment and

                 award dated 20.02.2021 passed by the learned Member of Motor

                 Accident Claims Tribunal, Latur in MACP No.112 of 2019.




                                                                                1 of 8
                                     (( 2 ))       959 FA NO. 2294 OF 2021


2.         It is the case of the claimant that on 22.05.2018 at about

07:00 a.m., the claimant alongwith his cousin brother Rahul Kamble

was proceeding on a motorcycle bearing registration No.MH-24-AJ-

5517 from Latur to Tuljapur, for having Darshan of Tuljapur Devi

Temple. The claimant was riding the motorcycle and Rahul was the

pillion rider. After having Darshan, they were proceeding towards

Yermala. At that time at about 01:30 p.m, when they reached near

the bridge of village Shingoli, Tq. and Dist. Osmanabad, a Tumtum

auto-rickshaw bearing registration No. MH-25/F-1142, driven by

respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner, came from the

opposite side and dashed into the said motorcycle. As a result of the

accident, the claimant sustained multiple injuries, including crush

injuries to his left leg, hands, nose and other vital parts of the body.



3.         Mr. S. S. Manale, learned Advocate for the appellant

pointed out the pleadings, the evidence, the grounds of objections of

the appeal and the reasons and findings in the impugned judgment.

He submitted that, at the time of the accident, the claimant was

working as a driver with Ambika Dal Mills at Kolpa and was earning a

salary of Rs.10,000/- per month. He was also cultivating his father's

agricultural land and earning Rs.2,000/- per month therefrom. He

                                                                    2 of 8
                                    (( 3 ))      959 FA NO. 2294 OF 2021


further submitted that the claimant has sustained 100% functional

disability. However, the learned Tribunal determined his disability at

60% only, though the Medical Board had determined his permanent

physical disability at 70% on account of amputation of his left leg. He

pointed out Exhibit-61, the Unique Disability Identity Card issued by

the Medical Board of the Civil Hospital, Latur. He further submitted

that the claimant's income is proved from the bank passbook of Janta

Sahakari Bank. Though the evidence establishes that the claimant was

earning Rs.8,000/- per month, the learned Tribunal considered his

monthly income Rs.6,000/- only. He further submitted that, due to

amputation of his left leg, the claimant had lost his marriage

prospects. However, no compensation was awarded by the learned

Tribunal under the head of loss of marriage prospects. He further

submitted that the learned Tribunal had awarded only Rs.40,000/-

towards special    diet,   travelling   and   attendant    charges,        and

Rs.70,000/- towards pain and suffering, loss of expectation of life,

loss of amenities, comfort, matrimonial prospects, future medical

expenses, nourishment, loss of earnings during treatment and the cost

of an artificial limb. He further submitted that, in view of the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance

Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, the claimant is entitled

                                                                  3 of 8
                                   (( 4 ))       959 FA NO. 2294 OF 2021


to addition of 40% towards loss of future prospects. However, the

learned Tribunal has awarded only 20% towards future prospects. He,

therefore, prayed to allow the appeal by enhancing the amount of

compensation.



4.        Learned Advocates for Respondent Nos.1 and 3 strongly

opposed the appeal. They submitted that the learned Tribunal had

awarded reasonable amount of compensation after appreciating the

entire evidence on record. Therefore, there is no scope for

interference in the impugned judgment and award.              They lastly

prayed to dismiss the appeal.



5.        Perused the Record and Proceedings, particularly the

reasons and findings in the impugned judgment along with the

evidence on record and the grounds of objections raised in the appeal.

On perusal of Exhibit-45, it is established that the claimant had

sustained 70% permanent disability and it was duly proved by Dr.

Chandrashekhar Santram Halnikar (P.W.-3), Halnikar Multispeciality

and Plastic Surgery Hospital, Latur. He had also issued a certificate to

the claimant regarding the loss of earning capacity. Exhibit-46

establishes that, because of amputation of the claimant’s left leg, he

                                                                  4 of 8
                                  (( 5 ))      959 FA NO. 2294 OF 2021


was unable to perform his job as a four-wheeler driver. Thus, he had

suffered 100% loss of earning capacity. From Exhibit-46, it is clearly

established that the claimant had suffered 100% functional disability.

Dr. Chandrashekhar Santram Halnikar (P.W.-3) was cross-examined at

length and his evidence was not shaken in the cross-examination.

Thus, it stands established that the claimant had suffered 100%

functional disability. Though the claimant had sustained 70%

permanent physical disability, his functional disability is 100% as he

was serving as a driver. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to

compensation for his functional disability of 100%. The learned

Tribunal erred in determining the claimant's functional disability of

60% only.



6.          As far as the claimant's income is concerned, the bank

statement shows that he was getting an approximate salary of

Rs.6,000/- to 8,000/- per month. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has

rightly determined his average monthly income at Rs.6,000/-.

However, while determining the compensation, the learned Tribunal

failed to consider the claimant's 100% functional disability. The

claimant was 23 years of age at the time of the accident. Due to the

amputation of his left leg, his marriage prospects have been seriously

                                                                5 of 8
                                  (( 6 ))      959 FA NO. 2294 OF 2021


affected. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any compensation

under the said head. In the facts and circumstances of the present

case, the claimant is entitled to Rs.5,00,000/- towards loss of

marriage prospects. Further, the learned Tribunal had awarded only

Rs.40,000/- towards special diet, travelling and attendant charges.

Considering the prolonged treatment undergone by the claimant,

including treatment at Mumbai, he is entitled to Rs.1,50,000/- under

the said head.     Similarly, considering the pain and suffering

undergone by the claimant, loss of expectation of life, loss of

amenities and comfort, and future medical expenses including the

cost of an artificial limb, the claimant is entitled to Rs.3,00,000/-

under the said head.



7.        Considering the monthly income of the claimant                 @

Rs.6,000/-. His annual income would come to Rs.72,000/- (Rs.6,000

× 12). By applying the multiplier of 18, the loss of future income

would come to Rs.12,96,000/- (Rs.72,000 × 18). The claimant is

also entitled to addition of 40% towards loss of future prospects in

view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680.

Accordingly, 40% of Rs.12,96,000/- comes to Rs.5,18,400/- for which

                                                                6 of 8
                                       (( 7 ))        959 FA NO. 2294 OF 2021


the claimant is entitled as compensation under the head of loss of

future   prospects.     Accordingly,     the     claimant    is    entitled     to

compensation under the following heads:

Particulars                                             Amount Rs.
Loss of future income (Rs.72,000 × 18) Rs.12,96,000/-
Addition of       40%     towards      future Rs. 5,18,400/-
prospects
Loss of marriage prospects                       Rs.5,00,000/-
Special diet, travelling and attendant Rs.1,50,000/-
charges
Pain and suffering, loss of expectation Rs.3,00,000/-
of life, loss of amenities, comfort and
future medical expenses including
artificial limb
           Total Compensation                    Rs.27,64,400/-


8.         Thus, the claimant is entitled to total compensation of

Rs.27,64,400/-, including the earlier compensation awarded and

received by him, along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date

of filing of the claim petition till its realization. The appeal, therefore,

deserves to be partly allowed by partly setting aside the impugned

judgment and award. Hence, the following order:

                                ::ORDER::

a.         The first appeal is partly allowed.

b.         The impugned judgment and award is partly set aside and

           modified as under:

                                                                       7 of 8
                                    (( 8 ))         959 FA NO. 2294 OF 2021


c.         The claimant is entitled to total compensation of

           Rs.27,64,400/-,    including       the   earlier    compensation

           awarded and received by him. Further, the claimant is also

           entitled to interest @ 7% per annum on the enhanced

           compensation from the date of the claim petition till

           realization of the entire amount.

d.         It is clarified that the claimants are not entitled to the

           interest for the period of delay, if any, condoned by this

           Court.

e.         If court fee is not paid for enhanced amount, the claimants

           shall pay deficit court fee.       On receiving the same, the

           enhanced amount of compensation be paid to them.

f.         Award be drawn up accordingly.

g.         The respondents are directed to deposit the enhanced

           amount of compensation with accrued interest thereon in

           this Court within three (03) months from today.

h.         Pending civil applications, if any, are disposed of.




                                  [ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ]
HRJadhav




                                                                     8 of 8