AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
. Heard. With consent of the both sides, matter is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission.
By the present Appeal, Appellant/Insurance Company has challenged the Judgment and Award dated 24/4/2025 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Yavatmal in MACP No. 99/2022.
This Appeal is again a glaring example of the same Presiding Officer, who while deciding the Claim Petition, without going through the evidence or documents available on record, has done the exercise of cut-paste and passed the impugned Judgment.
It is pointed out by the Appellant that in the present Appeal, the learned Tribunal has not applied judicial mind while deciding the Appeal, and more particularly, recorded self-contradictory finding in the entire Judgment. It is pointed out that the learned Tribunal, while determining the notional income, has considered the minimum wages of unskilled worker in road construction and buildings, whereas Claimant is doing milk business and by applying said income, decided the quantum of compensation in the matter. Therefore, it is stated that considering the perverse finding recorded in the impugned Judgment, same is liable to be remanded back to decide the same again on its own merits by the Claim Tribunal.
It is undisputed fact that in the present matter the Respondent No.1, who is original Claimant, who is milk businessman, filed the Claim Petition for grant of compensation towards physical disability, alleged to have been sustained by him in the motor accident. It was the case of the Respondent No.1 that in the accident which was occurred on 2/9/2021, he has sustained certain injuries, by which, he caused permanent disability to his leg and all injuries over the body. He has taken treatment for the same, but could not recover completely. As such, he has sustained 35% permanent physical disability. On the basis of functional disability, he has claimed compensation in the matter before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
The Respondent No.1 in his Application before the Tribunal has specifically stated that he was an agriculturist and milk businessman, and on the basis of his income, claimed compensation before the Tribunal for the injuries he caused in the accident. The Respondent No.1, in support of his submission, has also adduced the evidence, wherein he has stated that he was an agriculturist and milk businessman, and accordingly, on the basis of his income, which he has stated in his evidence and the disability certificate produced on record, claimed the compensation in the matter.
The learned Tribunal, while dealing with the Claim Petition filed by the Respondent No.1, has recorded the following perverse finding in paragraph No.21 of the Judgment :
“21.…………………………….. In this background disability and functional disability should be understood in context of opportunity to earn besides ability of do construction work. Orthopedic surgeon has opined about effect of disability. The petitioner, after his recovery from fracture injuries, is unable to do that work which he was doing prior to the accident, and he is unfit to do work even of an ordinary labourer.”
Then the learned Tribunal has recorded in next paragraph of the Judgment that :
“22.In this background, tribunal comes to conclusion that this 35% of physical disability has result of 100% loss in earning capacity.”
Further, in paragraph No.29 of the Judgment it is recorded that :
“29.In the case which was filed before him, there is an evidence about the applicant working as an agriculturist.”
But, in paragraph No.31, the learned Tribunal has recorded the finding that :
“31.Considering the Maharashtra Government Minimum Wages Notification for relevant year, of which judicial note can be taken, in place like Yavatmal District i.e. Zone III, minimum wages of unskilled worker in road construction and buildings, it is notionally treated as Rs.14774/- per month.”
As such, the Tribunal has drawn notional income of the Respondent No.1 at the rate of Rs.14774/- per month by treating him as a construction worker.
In the light of abovesaid findings, the learned Tribunal has done the calculation in the matter and thereby held that Respondent No.1 is entitled for compensation of Rs.35,59,493/-.
It is further pertinent to note that the Appeal, which this Court has decided, in which challenge is to the Judgment and Award passed by the same Presiding Officer, found that in respect of conventional head i.e. non-pecuniary damages, there was cut-paste done by the Presiding Officer from the other Judgments, which he might have settled or from the Judgments which are decided by the other Court. In the present matter also cut-paste is done while deciding the issue of compensation on conventional heads. The most of the part of Judgment seems to be identical to the Judgments which are set aside by this Court. Therefore, the manner in which the learned Tribunal has decided the Claim Petition, is certainly not justified in the facts and circumstances of the case.
This Court in Appeal, while deciding the Judgment of the same Presiding Officer has specifically noted that this Presiding Officer should take care that such cut-paste should not be done while delivering the Judgment in Motor Accident Claim Petitions, in which, the Claimants, who are awaiting for years together for compensation, are unnecessarily harassed because this Court, considering this incorrect finding recorded by the Presiding Officer, is bound to remand the matter back to the Tribunal to decide afresh, and because of that, time of this Court as well as the trial court is unnecessarily consumed in the matter.
In the present case, considering the finding recorded in the impugned Judgment, it is crystal clear that the Presiding Officer of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has not applied his judicial mind and by treating the Respondent No.1 as a construction worker, has determined his notional income. The evidence, which was available on record and adduced by the Respondent No.1, is no where considered nor discussed in the matter. So also the compensation for non-pecuniary damages is also seems to be not properly dealt with by the learned Presiding Officer in the matter.
In view of this, indulgence of this Court is necessary in the matter. Accordingly, following order is passed.
ORDER
First Appeal is allowed.
The impugned Judgment and Award dated 24/4/2025 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Yavatmal in MACP No. 99/2022 is hereby quashed and set aside.
The MACP No. 99/2022 is restored to the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Yavatmal.
The parties are directed to appear before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Yavatmal on 1st September, 2026.
The Tribunal shall make an endeavour to decide the Claim Petition on the basis of oral and documentary evidence, which is already recorded by the Tribunal, at the earliest, and in any case, within a period of two months from the date of appearance of the parties.
50% of the amount, which is deposited before this Court, shall be transferred to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Yavatmal and remaining 50% of the amount is permitted to be withdrawn by the present Appellant along with interest accrued thereon.
The amount which is transferred to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal shall be disbursed after final decision of the Claim Petition as per the entitlement of the parties.
No order as to costs.
Since the First Appeal is disposed of, pending Civil Application Nos. 437/2026 and 2590/2026 do not survive. Both the Applications stand disposed of accordingly.