fa300.11 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO.:300 OF 2011 United India Insurance Co Ltd Tilak Nagar Latur Through Authorised Signatory VERSUS Shivaji Waghji Panchal And Ors *** Mr. V R Mundada , Advocate for Petitioner Mr. A.V. Indrale Patil, advocate for respondent no. 1. Mr. A.N. Gaddime, advocate for respondent no. 2. *** CORAM : R.M. BORDE, J. DATE : July 19, 2011 PER COURT: 1 This is an appeal by the insurance company raising exception to the judgment and award passed by the Ex Officio Member MACT, Udgir in MACP no. 50/2007 decided on 10-10-2008. While allowing the claim petition, the tribunal has directed payment of compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,23,000/- inclusive of amount of ‘no fault liability’ to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of Nine percent per annum from fa300.11 2 the date of registration of the petition till realisation of the amount. The amount is directed to be paid by respondent nos. 1 and 2 jointly and severally. 2 It is the case of the claimant that he was proceeding towards Udgir alongwith his friends. While he was walking on the tar road by left side, at the relevant time at about 8.30 pm, motorcycle bearing no. MH 23 B 2764 which was being driven in rash and negligent manner, gave dash to the claimant from the front side, due to which the claimant sustained injuries to his right leg. Claimant was moved to the hospital where he was examined by the doctor. Necessary information in respect of occurrence of the accident was given to the police whereupon Crime No. 15/2007 came to be registered at police station Udgir. Police had drawn panchanama and after completion of investigation, filed charge sheet against respondent no. 1. Claimant sustained injuries to his right leg and was treated in the hospital at Latur. Claimand had to incur medical expenses to the tune of Rs.25,000/-. He claimed that there is loss of income to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/- and on account of permanent disability. He claims amount of Rs. 4,75,000/-. Claimant has restricted his claim to Rs. 8,00,000/-. The doctor who was examined before the tribunal has stated about disability to the extent of fa300.11 3 seventeen percent and has further conceded in the cross examination that there is margin of error to the extent of two to three percent on either side. Considering the extent of disability as well as considering the income of the claimant so also on taking into account the medical expenses incurred by the claimant, the tribunal computed liability in respect of payment of compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,23,000/-. 3 Mr. Mundada, learned counsel for the insurance company has raised objection to the judgment and award passed by th tribunal. He has firstly contended that the insurance company has initiated an enquiry after disposal of the claim petition, which reveals that the vehicle in question was not involved in the accident. Another objection raised is as regards award of quantum of compensation, which, according to the learned counsel, is unreasonable. It is also contended that the injury which was sustained by the claimant is heeled after passage of time. There is no evidence to substantiate that as a result of injury there is any reduction in the income of the claimant. It is contended that the claimant is an agriculturist and, even if, assuming the incurring disability to the extent of seventeen percent by him, he can carry on the agricultural functions through his servants and as such, the tribunal was not justified in computing the liability to the extent of fa300.11 4 Rs.96,920/- towards future loss on account of permanent disability. 4 So far as the first objection as regards denial of involvement of the vehicle is concerned, on perusal of the written statement it appears that no such objection was raised before the tribunal. The objection is being advanced for the first time before this court, therefore the same is not required to be taken into account. It has been substantiated by the claimant by leading cogent evidence that the vehicle in question was involved in the accident and as a result of impact given by the vehicle the claimant has sustained injuries. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the doctor who was examined before the tribunal has deposed about the extent of disability which, according to the doctor, is sixteen percent. Even if considering the margin of error to be two to three percent on either side, computation of compensation by the tribunal is on the lower side. Argument advanced by learned counsel appearing for the insurance company that there is no loss occurred to the claimant on account of disability suffered by him for the reason that he is an agriculturist and that he can carry on agricultural operations through servants, according to me is strange. The argument advanced by the insurance company that the agriculturist need not be in a fit state of physique and the agriculturist can fa300.11 5 carry on operations through servants even though he sustains any permanent disability is unreasonable and liable to be rejected. An agriculturist apart from supervising agricultural operations carried through servants is also required to actually work in field and due to permanent disability sustained by the claimant, there is actual loss in terms of employment of additional labour to carry out agricultural operations. The argument advanced by insurance company that the asset of the agriculturist i.e. land is unaffected hence there is no monitory loss, is unacceptable. 5 Considering the state of disability, in my view, computation of compensation arrived at by the tribunal at Rs. 96,920/- taking into consideration multiplier at 17, is quite reasonable. The claimant has also substantiated the claim in respect of medical expenses incurred by him. Trial court was therefore justified in awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 20,744/- towards medical expenses and Rs. 5,000/- on account of pains and suffering. Considering the totality of the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the appeal tendered by the appellant is devoid of substance and is liable to be dismissed with cost which I quantify at Rs. 5,000/-. The amount deposited by the insurance company in execution proceedings be fa300.11 6 permitted to be withdrawn by the claimant and the same be adjusted while passing order in execution application, by the tribunal. The amount deposited by the appellant in this court also shall be permitted to be withdrawn by the claimant. Out of amount of Rs. 25,000/- deposited by the insurance company in this court, towards statutory deposit, an amount of Rs.20,000/- be refunded to the insurance company and Rs. 5,000/- be p aid to the claimant towards cost of this appeal. Appeal accordingly stands dismissed. [ R.M. BORDE, J. ] dyb