SHRAWAN BHAGWAN SONAWANEversusMUKESH ATMARAM JADHAV AND ANR

2026:BHC-AUG:41363
                                                   1                          903-FA-3112-2013.odt




                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                  903 FIRST APPEAL NO. 3112 OF 2013

                       Shrawan Bhagwan Sonawane                          … Appellant
                                                                         (Org. Claimant)
                            VERSUS
             1.        Mukesh Atmaram Jadhav
                       Age Major, Occ. Transport,
                       R/o Kusumbe, Tal. & Dist. Dhule

             2.        The National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
                       The Branch Manager,
                       Maharana Pratap Chowk, Dhule.                     … Respondents

                                                  …..
             Mr. S. S. Patil, Advocate for the Appellant.
             Mr. S. R. Bobade, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
                                                  …..

                                      CORAM            : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.
                                      DATE             : 04 SEPTEMBER 2026

             JUDGMENT:


             1.        The present appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles

             Act, 1988 by the Original Claim petitioner in Motor Accident Claim

             Petition No.284 of 2004, which came to be decided by the learned

             Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhule, vide judgment and

             order dated 25 August 2014 in order to seek enhancement of the

             compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal has

             awarded compensation of Rs.1,73,800/- to the appellant, Rs.45,000/-

             towards disability suffered, Rs.1,01,800/- towards reimbursement of

             Kiran Kawre
                                   2                         903-FA-3112-2013.odt


medical expenses, Rs.12,990/- towards purchase of medicine and medical

expenses, Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.6,000/- towards loss

of income during the period of hospitalization and Rs.3,000/- towards

special diet.


2.        The appellant met with a road accident on 27/9/2002 at about

6.30 p.m. while he was riding a motorcycle as a pillion rider, which was

hit by the offending vehicle owned by respondent No.1. The offending

vehicle was insured with the respondent No.2 at the relevant time. The

appellant is an agriculturist. On account of the injuries suffered, he

sustained fractures on the lumber joint, legs and right ankle. The

appellant was discharged from the hospital on 18/11/2002.


3.        He preferred a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, which came to be registered as Motor Accident Claim

Petition No.284 of 2003. The respondent – insurance company filed its

written statement opposing the claim and disputing all the facts stated in

the claim petition. Based on the rival pleadings, issues were framed by

the learned Tribunal. The appellant examined himself, Dr. Gautam Shah

and Dr. Nikhil Shah, and also examined two pharmasists, namely, Mr.

Imran Ansari and Mr. Dinesh Shah, in support of his case. The appellant

deposed that on account of the injuries suffered in the accident, his right

leg was shortened and that he was not fit to perform his work. He also



Kiran Kawre
                                      3                        903-FA-3112-2013.odt


stated that he has lost vision in his left eye. Dr. Gautam Shah, who had

performed the surgery on the appellant, stated in his deposition that the

appellant had recovered from ailment after the treatment. The disability

certificate issued by the Civil Surgeon shows 50% disability. Dr. Nikhil

Shah has deposed on the facts pertaining to admission of the appellant in

the hospital on the date of accident.


4.        On appreciation of the evidence, the learned Tribunal has held that

the appellant was an agriculturist and having regard to the nature of

work to be performed by a farmer, it cannot be said that he had suffered

total loss of earning capacity. The learned Tribunal opined that since

there was no evidence on record to ascertain the income of the appellant,

a notional income of Rs. 3,000/- could be taken into consideration for

computing the compensation. It was held that the appellant was 73 years

of age as on the date of the accident. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal

has awarded fixed compensation of Rs.45,000/- on account of disability

suffered by the appellant. In addition, compensation was awarded

towards medical expenses, medical expenditure, medicines, pain and

suffering, hospitalization.


5.        The learned advocate for the appellant argued that the correct age

of appellant was 62 years, as is recorded in the treatment papers. He

contended that age of 73 years was wrongly recorded in the medical



Kiran Kawre
                                      4                        903-FA-3112-2013.odt


paper of the year 2004, when the appellant had visited the doctor for

follow-up treatment. The learned advocate also contended that the

learned Tribunal has erred in awarding compensation of Rs.45,000/-,

which was inadequate. Apart from this, it is contended that appropriate

enhancement ought to be granted to the appellant under the head of pain

and suffering.


6.        Per contra, the learned advocate for the respondent – Insurance

Company contended that since the Civil Surgeon who has issued the

disability certificate was not examined, the disability certificate could not

be relied upon. The learned advocate contended that there was no

evidence on record to arrive at conclusion regarding the permanent

disability suffered by the appellant. It is further contended that the

documents placed on record by the appellant himself indicated that the

correct age of appellant was 73 years as on the date of accident. The

learned advocate therefore submits that the appeal deserves to be

dismissed.


7.        Upon hearing the rival submissions, the following points arises for

consideration in the present appeal (i) Has the learned Tribunal correctly

assessed the amount of compensation payable to the appellant by treating

his age as 73 years and his loss of earning capacity by 50%?


8.        The appellant has stated in his examination-in-chief that his age

Kiran Kawre
                                     5                       903-FA-3112-2013.odt


was 64 years as on the date of recording of deposition. The deposition

was recorded in the year 2011. The examination-in-chief is not on

affidavit but recorded by the learned Tribunal. The initial medical

documents dated 27/9/2002 and the discharge card dated 18/11/2002

records the age of the appellant as 62 years. Thereafter, the appellant had

met the doctor for follow-up treatment on 28/09/2004, wherein his age

was recorded as 73 years. Apart from this, no evidence was produced on

record to prove the age of the appellant. It appears from the cross-

examination that the age of the appellant was challenged during the

course of cross-examination. The appellant was therefore aware that his

age was seriously disputed and that it was necessary for him to produce

evidence on record to prove his age. Despite being put to notice during

cross-examination that his age was seriously disputed, the appellant did

not produce any evidence on record.


9.        Although the initial medical papers of the year 2002 indicate the

age of the appellant as 62 years, the said documents cannot be treated as

documents of proof of date of birth or age. The burden of proving his age

was on the appellant. Since the appellant failed to bring appropriate

material on record in order to prove his age, this Court does not intend to

interfere with the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal treating the

age of the appellant as 73 years. It would be appropriate to take the age

of the appellant as 73 years.


Kiran Kawre
                                      6                        903-FA-3112-2013.odt


10.       Although the Civil Surgeon who issued the disability certificate is

not examined, the appellant had examined treating doctor to prove the

nature of the injuries suffered during the accident. The nature of the

injuries is not seriously in dispute. The appellant was 73 years of age on

the date of which he was injured in road accident. He is an agriculturist.

He has suffered three major fracture injuries. The leg in which injuries

are suffered is shortened in length. He was hospitalized for treatment for

a period of around two months. Having regard to the nature of the

injuries, as well as the occupation and the age of the appellant, it must be

held that he suffered 100% loss of earning capacity. The learned Tribunal

has erred in restricting the amount of compensation on account of loss of

earning capacity to the tune of Rs.45,000/-


11.       The learned Tribunal has rightly considered the notional income of

the appellant, who was an agriculturist, as Rs.3,000/- per month. Having

regard to the age of the appellant, a multiplier of 5 would be the

appropriate multiplier. In view of the aforesaid, the compensation

payable to the appellant is determined at Rs.1,80,000/- (Rs.36,000/- x 5

= Rs.1,80,000/-) as against Rs.45,000/- awarded by the learned

Tribunal. Having regard to the nature of injuries suffered, in the

considered opinion of this Court, the learned Tribunal should have

awarded Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering, as against Rs.5,000/-

awarded by the Court. The amount of compensation towards pain and


Kiran Kawre
                                         7                        903-FA-3112-2013.odt


suffering is enhanced by Rs.14,000/-. In addition to this, an additional

amount of Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards              future treatment, having

regard to the nature of the injuries suffered. Compensation awarded

against other heads is proper. Accordingly, the total amount of

compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is enhanced by an

amount of Rs.65,000/-. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in the

following terms:


(i)       The judgment and award dated 17/10/2011 passed by the learned

Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhule, in Motor Accident Claim

Petition No.284 of 2003 is modified by enhancing the amount of

compensation awarded by a sum of Rs.1,65,000/-, over and above

compensation of Rs.1,73,800/- awarded by the learned Tribunal.


(ii)          The respondent Nos.1 and 2 will be jointly and severally liable to

pay additional compensation of Rs.1,65,000/-, as determined by this

Court, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of

filing of the Claim Petition i.e., 28/4/2003, till realization.

(iii)     Parties to bear own cost in appeal.




                                                   [ ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. ]




Kiran Kawre