SAMPADA GUNWANT SURYAWANSHIversusGANGADHAR BALAJI MUNDHE AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:43928

                                         1                         901.FA-2556-2013.doc



                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD
                             FIRST APPEAL NO. 2556 OF 2013
              Sampada Gunwant Suryawanshi
              Died represented through her legal representatives
              1-A    Dhammanand Gunvant Suryawanshi
                     Age : 41 years, Occupation : Veterinary Doctor,
                     R/o Shivaji Nagar, Pachod (Bk.),
                     Paithan, Tal. Paithan,
                     District Aurangabad.
              1-B    Sadhana w/o Siddharth Sutar,
                     Sadhana d/o Gunvant Suryawanshi,
                     Age : 38 years, Occupation : Housewife,
                     R/o Shivaji Nagar, Pachod (Bk.),
                     Paithan, Tal. Paithan,
                     District Aurangabad.
                                Versus
              1.     Gangadhar Balaji Mundhe
                     Age 23 years, Occupation Driver,
                     R/o Waghdari, Tal. Gangakhed, District Parbhani.

              2.     Dhananjay s/o Harichandra Gitte,
                     Age Major, Occupation Business,
                     R/o Belamba, Tal. Parali, District Beed.

              3.     Royal Sundaram Allianz General Insurance Company
                     Limited through its Divisional Manager,
                     “Sakar”, 2nd floor, above Axis Bank,
                     CTS No. 18030, Adalat Road,
                     Aurangabad.
                                                …
                       Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Patil Bipinchandra K.
                      Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. Suresh Munde
                     Advocate for Respondent No.3 : Mr. A. A. Puranik and
                                  Mr. Deshpande Avinash S.
                                             …
                         2                         901.FA-2556-2013.doc




                               CORAM     : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.
                                 DATE    : 24 th SEPTEMBER 2026

PER COURT :
1.       The present appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act in order to seek enhancement in the amount of
compensation awarded by the learned Member, Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Aurangabad in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.
393/2011. The Appellant sustained injuries in a motor vehicle
accident and, consequently, filed a claim petition under Section 166
of the Motor Vehicles Act. The offending vehicle is owned by
Respondent No. 2 and was insured with Respondent No. 3 at the
relevant time. Respondent No. 1 was the driver of the offending
vehicle. The learned Tribunal has computed the amount of
compensation payable at Rs.2,33,600/-, however, since the claim was
restricted to Rs.2,00,000/-, compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- is
awarded. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any compensation
towards expenses for purchase of medicines on the ground that the
witnesses from the medical stores from which the medicines were
purchased were not examined.


2.       The learned Advocate for the Appellant has restricted his
submissions to the non-payment of any amount towards medicines,
surgicals, etc. He has also assailed the judgment and award on the
ground that, although the learned Tribunal found that the Appellant
was entitled to receive compensation of Rs.2,33,600/-, the
                           3                           901.FA-2556-2013.doc



compensation awarded was restricted to Rs.2,00,000/- on the ground
that the claim was restricted to Rs.2,00,000/-.


3.       The learned Advocate for the Respondent justified the
award and contend that since the medical bills are not proved, the
same are rightly discarded by the learned Tribunal.


4.       On hearing the rival submissions, following points arise for
my consideration :
(i)      Whether the amount of compensation could be restricted to
Rs.2,00,000/-, despite having recorded a finding that the
Appellant/Claimant was entitled to compensation of Rs.2,33,600/-.

(ii)     What should be the amount of compensation awarded
towards purchase of medicines and surgicals?

Point No.(i)
5.       It is now well settled that, irrespective of the amount
claimed by the claimant in a petition under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, the Tribunal is duty-bound to award just and fair
compensation to which the claimant is found entitled. In that view of
the matter, the learned Tribunal was clearly in error in restricting the
compensation to Rs.2,00,000/- solely on the ground that the claim
had been restricted to that amount. The compensation awarded,
therefore, deserves to be enhanced to Rs.2,33,600/-.


Point No.(ii)
6.       It is true that the Claimant has not examined any competent
                          4                         901.FA-2556-2013.doc



witness from the medical stores from which medicines and surgicals
were purchased. However it is duly proved that the Claimant had
suffered fracture injuries in both her legs and hands and was
required to undergo three surgeries. The doctors were examined, and
their bills were duly proved. The learned Tribunal has awarded
compensation towards medical treatment on the basis of the bills
proved through the testimony of the doctors who were examined.
However perusal of the bills will indicate that cost of medicines and
surgical is not included in the said bills. It is obvious that having
sustained four fracture injuries and undergone three surgical
procedures, the claimant must have incurred additional expenditure
towards the purchase of medicines and surgicals. Normally in such a
case the matter should be remanded to enable the Claimant to prove
the medical bills. However in the case at hand I am not inclined to
adopt the said course. The amount of compensation is a meager
amount of Rs.2,33,600/-. The doctors bills are proved to the extent
of Rs.1,01,600/-. In motor accident claim cases, some degree of
reasonable guesstimation is permissible while computing just
compensation. The aggregate amount of the medical bills produced
on record, though not formally exhibited, comes to Rs.96,901/-.


7.       In the considered opinion of this Court, it will be
appropriate to award amount of Rs.66,400/- to the Claimant towards
purchase of medicines and surgicals so that the total amount of
compensation is rounded of Rs.3,00,000/-. Having regard to four
fracture injuries and three surgical procedures undergone by the
                                  5                   901.FA-2556-2013.doc



Appellants, the said amount appears to be most reasonable.


8.         In the result, the Appeal is partly allowed in the following
terms :
(i)        The compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-, as awarded by the
learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aurangabad, vide
judgment and award dated 11.03.2013 passed in Motor Accident
Claim Petition No. 393 of 2011, is enhanced by a further sum of
Rs.1,00,000/-, thereby increasing the total compensation payable to
Rs.3,00,000/-. The said amount shall be inclusive of the amount of
Rs.25,000/- awarded under the principle of no-fault liability.


(ii)       The Respondents are jointly and severally directed to pay
the enhanced compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- in addition to the
compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- awarded by the learned Tribunal,
along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the enhanced
amount from 19.04.2011, i.e., the date of institution of the claim
petition, till its realization.



                                              ROHIT W. JOSHI
                                                 JUDGE




NAJEEB..