High CourtsSingle Bench(2025) 12 BOM CK 2571

Sharmila Madhukar Sawant vs Prasad Shantaram Jadhav & Anr.

Bombay High Court, Kolhapur Bench · Decided on 12 December 2025

HON’BLE JUDGES
Shivkumar Dige, J
CASE NUMBER
FIRST APPEAL NO. 75 OF 2024

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

31 paragraphs · 496 words
1.

This Appeal is preferred by the Appellant-Claimant for enhancement of compensation. It is against the Judgment and order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sindhudurg-Oros (for short “Tribunal”) dated 09.12.2013 passed in Claim Application No.46 of 2011.

2.

It is contention of learned counsel for the Appellant that the appellant has suffered 20% permanent physical disability due to accidental injuries. While awarding compensation, the Tribunal has not awarded multiplier and future prospects. At the time of accident, the claimant was 20 years old. The Tribunal has not considered the monthly income of the claimant. Hence, requested to allow the Appeal.

3.

The learned counsel for the Appellant-claimant has relied on Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Karuna Parmar Vs. Prakash Sinha and Ors1.

4.

It is contention of learned counsel for the Respondent – Insurance Company that the claimant was 20 years old at the time of accident and she was student. Hence, her monthly income cannot be considered. The Tribunal has passed well reasoned order. No interference is required in it. Hence, requested to dismiss the appeal.

5.

I have heard both the learned counsels, perused the impugned judgment and order passed by the Tribunal. Admittedly, the claimant was 20 years old at the time of accident and she was student. While awarding the compensation, the Tribunal has not considered monthly income of the claimant. Considering the age of the claimant, I am considering notional monthly income at Rs.4,000/-per month. The Tribunal has not awarded future prospects. The claimant is entitled for 40% future prospects. The Tribunal has not applied multiplier. The proper multiplier for age of 20 years is '18'. Rest of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal are proper.

6.

Considering the above calculation, the claimant is entitled for following compensation:

ParticularsAmount (Rs.)
Loss of Disability Monthly Income 4,000/-Future Prospect 40% 1,600/-Multiplier – 18 and Disability 20% (4000+1600=5600 X12 X 18 X 20% =2,41,920/-)2,41,920/-
Hospital and Medical Expenses1,27,356/-
Pain and suffering75,000/-
Travelling Expenses41,146/-
Lodging and Boarding of Parents21,600/-
Attendance Service Charges49,898/-
Amenities of Life1,00,000/-
Marriage Prospect2,00,000/-
Special Diet25,000/-
Conveyance Charges25,000/-
Total9,06,920/-
Less Awarded by Tribunal2,80,000/-
Total enhanced amount Rs.9,06,920/- (-) Rs.2,80,000/- = 6,26,920/-.6,26,920/-
7.

In view of the above, I pass following order :

ORDER

(i)

The Appeal is allowed.

(ii)

The claimant is entitled for enhanced amount of Rs.6,26,920/- at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing claim Petition till realisation of amount.

(iii)

The Respondent - Insurance Company shall deposit the enhanced amount along with accrued interest thereon, within six weeks from the date of receipt of this order;

(iv)

The claimant is permitted to withdraw the deposited amount along with accrued interest thereon;

(v)

The claimant shall pay the deficit Court fees on enhanced amount, if any, as per Rule;

(vi)

Record and Proceedings be sent back to the Tribunal.

8.

The Appeal is disposed off in the aforesaid terms.

9.

All pending applications, if any also stand disposed off.

Footnotes

  1. 1.2025 ACJ 1624