1 907 fa 449.13 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 449 OF 2013 Ananta Munjaji Walke .. Appellant Versus The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation through the Divisional Controller Parbhani .. Respondent Shri Mahesh P. Kale, Advocate for the Appellant. Shri A. D. Wange, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. DATE : 30TH SEPTEMBER, 2026. ORDER : . Present first appeal is filed U/Sec. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for the sake of brevity hereinafter referred as to the “Act”) by the claimant in M. A. C. P. No. 20 of 2007 in order to seek enhancement of compensation as is awarded by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gangakhed vide judgment and award dated 30th April, 2011. 2. The appellant was riding as a pillion rider on a motorcycle which met with an accident with the bus owned by the respondent – Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Ltd. (for the sake of brevity hereinafter referred as to the “MSRTC”). The accident occurred on 29th April, 2007. The appellant was hospitalized from 30.04.2007 to 18.06.2007. The 2026:BHC-AUG:46758 2 907 fa 449.13 driver of the vehicle on which appellant was riding succumbed to the injuries suffered in the accident. The appellant has suffered following injuries. I Fracture ribs (L) ide (1st to 6th rib and 8th rib) chaemothrx (L). II Head injury cerebral edema c fracture of Right temporal bone. III Comminuted fracture of (r) femure c c fracture Patella Rt side. IV Fracture Pelvis V Sutured Lacerated wound over …. of thigh Left side c Abrasion 15 cms VI Abrasion (R) ear. 3. The appellant was 42 years old at the time of accident and was doing labour work for earning his livelihood. 4. As stated above, the appellant preferred aforesaid claim petition U/Sec. 166 of the Act seeking compensation. The respondent filed written statement in order to defend the claim petition. It was contended by the respondent that the accident had occurred due to fault of the driver of the motorcycle. 5. Learned Tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence in the petition. The appellant has led evidence by examining himself, treating doctor and shop owner from whom medicines 3 907 fa 449.13 were purchased. The respondent examined driver of the bus. The learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to the appellant including amount of Rs.25,000/- awarded towards no fault liability. The learned Tribunal has recorded that the appellant was entitled to amount of Rs.4,800/- towards loss of earning during the course of hospitalization, Rs.5,000/- towards pain and sufferings, Rs.20,000/- for future loss of income and Rs.1,69,000/- towards medical expenses. 6. The respondent MSRTC has not challenged the judgment and award. 7. The contention of the learned advocate for the appellant is that the Tribunal has erred in not awarding any compensation towards loss of earning. The learned advocate contends that the appellant has examined treating doctor, who has deposed that the appellant has suffered 25% disability due to the injuries suffered by him. It is also contended that the loss of earning capacity is total and cannot be restricted to 25%. The learned advocate submits that the learned Tribunal has completely erred in not awarding compensation towards loss of earning. 8. Per contra, learned advocate for the respondent – MSRTC contends that only fracture injuries were suffered by the appellant and as such learned Tribunal has rightly denied the claim towards loss of earning. The learned advocate further contends that although a categorical finding is recorded that the 4 907 fa 449.13 hospital bill of the appellant was Rs.45,165/- and the medicines purchased worth Rs.18,000/-, the learned Tribunal has awarded amount of Rs.1,69,000/- towards treatment, which is completely unjustified. 9. It is not in dispute that the appellant was 42 years old at the time of accident. The injuries suffered which are enumerated above are also not in dispute. The appellant has failed to lead cogent evidence to support his income. It is however, obvious that a person like labourer will not be able to produce any documentary evidence to establish his income. The learned Tribunal has considered the daily wages of the appellant at Rs.100/- per day, which is not disputed by either of the parties. The amount appears to be reasonable. In view of above, the monthly wages / income of the appellant should be taken at Rs.3,000/-. In my opinion, the learned Tribunal erred in deducting amount of Rs.600/- towards holidays. A daily wager like the appellant may not have luxury of enjoying holidays. 10. Perusal of the injuries would indicate that seven ribs of the appellant were fractured in the accident. There is fracture injury in the right temporal bone and the patella Rt side and pelvis. Having regard to the nature of the work i. e. work of a daily wager, the said injuries will certainly adversely affect the earing capability of the appellant. Although the disability certificate is of 25%, loss of earning capacity qua aforesaid injuries for a person engaged as a labourer should be taken at 50%. It is 5 907 fa 449.13 comprehensible that such injury caused to the appellant in the accident will affect the performance of work, which he was doing before he met with the accident. 11. Likewise, it must also be stated that the learned Tribunal has erred in awarding amount of Rs.1,69,000/- towards medical expenses, although the evidence on record establishes that expenses to the tune of Rs.63,165/- only were incurred for the treatment. In view of the aforesaid, the total compensation payable to the appellant is computed as under : Sr. No. Head Compensation Amount 01. Loss of monthly income Rs.3,000/- (50%) (Rs.1,500/- per month) Rs.1500 x 12. Rs.18,000/- (Loss of annual income) 02. Total Loss of income (Rs.18,000/- x 14) Rs.2,52,000/- 03. 25% Future prospectus (Rs.2,52,000/- X 25%) Rs.63,000/- 04. Pains and sufferings Rs.25,000/- 05 Loss of amenities Rs.25,000/- 06. Loss of income during treatment/hospitalization Rs.6,000/- 07. Medical Expenses Rs.63,165/- Total amount of compensation entitled by the appellant Rs.4,34,165/- 12. In view of aforesaid, the total amount of compensation payable to the appellant is computed to Rs.4,34,165/-. I, 6 907 fa 449.13 therefore, pass following order. 13. The appeal is partly allowed by enhancing amount of compensation awarded by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gangakhed to Rs.4,34,165/- instead of Rs.2,00,000/- as awarded. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate of Rs. 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization. The parties to bear their own costs. [ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.] bsb/Sept. 26