Sandeep Mohan Mandhare vs The Civil Surgeon

The present appeal is preferred by the claimant in M.A.C.P. No.131 of 2011 seeking enhancement in compensation awarded by learned Tribunal. The claimant met with an road accident on 09.02.2010 while he was proceeding to Mimbodi on Ahmednagar-Jamkhed Road on motorcycle bearing RTO Registration No.MH-16-AN-9218 owned by him. The claimant was riding the motorcycle.

It is the case of claimant that he has suffered injuries in the said accident, as a consequence of which he has suffered severe injuries which has permanently reduced his earning capacity. The respondent opposed the claim by filing written statement and contended that the accident occurred completely due to fault on the part of claimant. Learned Tribunal considered the material on record and determined the total compensation payable at Rs.8,34,600/-, Rs. 5,40,000/- towards loss of income, Rs.50,000/- towards pain and sufferings, Rs.25,000/-towards special diet and attendance etc., and Rs.1,54,560/- towards medical expenses.

The contention of learned advocate for the appellant is that learned Tribunal has erred in holding that the case was one of contributory negligence and thereby reducing total amount of compensation payable by 50%. Learned advocate further contends that the injuries that the claimant has suffered in the accident have resulted in complete loss of earning capacity. Learned advocate, therefore, contends that the amount of compensation needs to be enhanced. Learned advocate also contends that the claimant was working as security guard at the relevant time and as per schedule of minimum wages, he was entitled to salary of Rs.8,000/- per month, as against which Rs.5,000/- per month which is taken as salary of claimant for computation of compensation.

Learned advocate for respondent draws attention to documents at Exhibit 24 and 25 which are certificates issued by the employer of claimant showing his salary as Rs.5,000/- per month. Learned advocate also draws attention to the evidence of doctor examined by claimant to contend that the case is not one of permanent disability. He also draws attention to examination-in-chief of claimant to point out that the claimant is continuing in employment and the contention of claimant is that because of injury, he is not able to draw appropriate salary, as he would otherwise have drawn.

In view of rival submissions, following points arise for my consideration :

Learned Tribunal has accepted documentary evidence placed on record by the claimant to consider his income as Rs.5,000/- per month. No fault can be found with learned Tribunal for considering income of claimant as Rs.5,000/- per month. Likewise, it must also be stated that learned Tribunal has also considered the aspects of future prospect by adding 50% of amount of salary for the purpose of computation of compensation. It is also appropriate to state that the claimant has himself stated in examination-in-chief that he is continuing in employment. The claimant has merely stated that because of injury, his prospects of drawing higher wages are hampered. In view of aforesaid, in the considered opinion of this Court, learned Tribunal was justified in computing compensation payable to the claimant by taking into consideration 1/3rd monthly income as loss of earning capacity. Learned Tribunal has also taken into consideration the future prospects as noted above. There is no dispute about multiplier adopted. In that view of matter, no fault can be found with the computation of compensation payable under the head of loss of income. As regards other heads, learned advocate for the claimant/appellant, has not raised any grievance.

As regards issue of contributory negligence, it is revealed from the spot panchnama that accident has occurred in the midst of the road. Both the vehicles were proceeding in opposite direction and accident has occurred by head on collision. The width of the road is mentioned as 22 feet. The offending vehicle of respondent is an ambulance. The claimant was riding motorcycle. It therefore appears that the claimant had better scope of maneuvering his vehicle to avoid the accident. Learned Tribunal has however held that both the parties were equally responsible for accident and has accordingly reduced claim by 50%. The finding recorded in this regard also appears to be proper.

In that view of the matter, no case for interference is called for in the impugned award. Hence, First Appeal is dismissed with no order as to cost.

Learned advocate for the respondent informs that the entire amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal is already deposited with learned Tribunal. It will be open for the appellant/claimant to withdraw the said amount along with accrued interest, if any.