1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO.252 OF 1994 Gopalkrishna s/o Satyanarayan Talanikar, (died) through his L.Rs. 1) Smt. Shailaja w/o Gopalkrishna Talanikar (widow) 2) Smt. Alka D/o Gopalkrishna Talnikar (Daughter); 3) Anil s/o Gopalkrishna Talanikar (son) 4) Abhay s/o Gopalkrishna Talanikar (son) - APPELLANTS VERSUS 1) The Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. 2) The Depot Manager, Maharashtra State Road Corporation, Jalna. 3) The Secretary, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Bombay. - RESPONDENTS ***** Mr.SS Choudhari,Advocate for Appellants; Mr.DS Bagul,Advocate for Respondent No.2. ----- 2 CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 24th March, 2010. JUDGMENT: 1) Heard learned Counsel for the parties extensively. 2) The First Appeal is admitted on 28.6.1994. The claimant/appellant feels aggrieved by the inadequate grant of compensation on 25.9.1992 to the extent of Rs.26,000/- as against his claim of Rs.2,00,000/-. 3) The factual details, which should not have any controversy, illustrate that on 27.8.1985, while the claimant, an advocate, then aged 55 years old, was making a move from Jalna to Sindhkhedraja, the driver of the bus could not control its excessive speed and unfortunately the bus jumped and dashed as against the barricade of bridge of Banarasi river and collapsed. 3 4) The details given by the claimant were found supported in the spot panchanama (Exhibit-24). The impact of the accident was of such grave, the bus driver and two passengers expired at the spot. The width of the bridge was noticed to be 25 ft.. In spite of such a good width, breeze driving of the driver took toll of precious life and also made the claimant to suffer. 5) One more claim petition by one Madhukar being MAC No.6/1986 was also filed. It was informed in the evidence by the claimant that he has received fracture to his left clavicle and left ribs, proved by medical certificate (Exhibit-25), where he was initially admitted. Thereafter, he was admitted and had treatment from 27.8.1985 to 7.9.1985, required to suffer even had to attend St. George's hospital at Bombay, where he has to seek treatment for his old ailment of heart. The percentage of permanent disability is 28. Thus, the cause of 4 accident being rashness and negligent approach of the driver, the learned Judge was expected to deal with the percentage of disability, keeping in juxtaposition age, earning source and loss of earning by the claimant. It is proved by the claimant that he was a practicing advocate since 1955 and owing to such accident and having been bed-ridden for a considerable duration, naturally suffered adversely in his profession. Though a private note-book (Exhibit-45) was tendered to show expenses incurred for medicines, the learned Judge did not believe the same. 6) The learned Judge, considering the nature of injuries to his left clavicle and fracture, found the claimant to be entitled for Rs.5,000/- on account of medical and special diet expenses. 7) It is apparent, the impact of accident for taking treatment to the claimant lasted for three months. He was an indoor patient for 11 days. The learned Judge has awarded Rs.1,000/- 5 as Attendant charges and for the rest Rs.5,000/- which includes loss of practice. The learned Judge assessed Rs.2,500/- on account of loss of agricultural income as there was no supervision in the intervening period. 8) The injuries to the claimant was to the vertebrae D12 and fracture of left clavical including mental torture could not have been lost sight, the learned Judge assessed it at Rs. 10,000/-, which, in my opinion, is again inaccurate calculation. 9) After reading the evidence of the claimant and the cross-examination, in paragraph 5 of the Examination-in-chief, the claimant has given breakup of his suffering and claim. Even if one feels that it is at exaggerated level, however, the loss of supervision to the agricultural property and loss of practice should have been calculated in tune with the practice he had and profession capabilities the claimant 6 having lost. In the year 1984-85, the claimant had paid income tax, he had yearly agricultural income of Rs.25,000/-. 10) Taking survey of above facts, though the claimant made enhancement from his initial amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/- in the petition, however, certainly he was entitled to more amount than Rs.33,500/- granted by the learned Member of MACT, Jalna. 11) Considering all these aspects, the claim is modified. The claimant is found entitled to additional amount of Rs.70,000/- (Rupees seventy thousand), payable by the respondents in the appeal. The additional amount will carry interest @ 6% from 25.9.1992. The First Appeal is disposed of in above terms. No costs. sd/- (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/fa252.94