902-FA-1643-2006.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.1643 OF 2006 1. Kailash Popat Jachak, ] Age : 37 Years, Occupation : Agriculturist, ] Residing at : At and Post : Pathardi, ] Taluka and District : Nashik. ] ...Appellant Versus 1. Dr.Vasinoddin Baddruddin Shaikh, ] Major, Occupation : Doctor, ] Residing at : Opp. Renuka Shopping Centre, ] Wadala Naka, Nashik. ] 2. The Manager, ] National Assurance Co., Limited, 7, ] Nadbrahma, Mahatma Nagar, Trimbak Road, ] Nashik : 422 007. ] ...Respondents ==================================================== Mr.Vivek Rane i/b. Mr.A.R. Kapadnis:- Advocate for Appellant. Ms.Poonam Mittal:- Advocate for Respondent No.2– Insurance Company. ==================================================== CORAM : S. M. MODAK, J. DATE : 17th SEPTEMBER 2026 ORAL JUDGMENT :- 1. The only point argued in this Appeal is about ‘appreciation of evidence about the income of the Appellant being an Agriculturist’ and Satish Sangar 1/6 SATISH RAMCHANDRA SANGAR Digitally signed by SATISH RAMCHANDRA SANGAR Date: 2026.09.21 18:44:42 +0530 902-FA-1643-2006.doc second, ‘whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal–Nashik (“Tribunal”) was right in refusing compensation on account of loss of future earning’. The Tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of Rs.1,57,850/- under different heads. (Paragraph No.19 of the Award. However, in direction No.2, it is typed as Rs.1,57,580/-. It appears to be typing mistake). So far as these heads are concerned, the Appellant is not aggrieved. 2. On this background, I have heard learned Advocate Shri.Rane holding for learned Advocate Shri.Kapadnis and learned Advocate Ms.Mittal for the Respondent No.2–Insurance Company. 3. The Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal–Nashik as per the Award dated 21st December 2005 held ‘the negligence of driver of the car’. It was owned by Respondent No.1 and insured with the Respondent No.2. The Appellant was driving the motorcycle and the accident took place on 13th November 2001 at about 2.00 p.m. He was standing by the side of road at Wadhorli turn on Nashik–Trimbak Road. At that time, a car came in high speed and gave dash to the motorcycle. There is damage to the motorcycle, so also, injuries to the Appellant. He was hospitalized initially in Civil Hospital and then in Suyash Hospital. The certificate issued by the Civil Hospital is on Page Satish Sangar 2/6 902-FA-1643-2006.doc No.37. There is one injury to right leg fracture of right TPR Fabula. He was also operated at Suyash Hospital. There is disability certificate at Exhibit–32. It is issued by the District Hospital–Nashik. The doctor has opined 30% permanent disability. It is as follows:- Shortening of R leg 1” 10% Restricted Mov of Knee R upto 90° 10% Restricted Mov of R hip 10% Total final Permanent Disability:- 30% 4. Admittedly, the doctor who has issued the Disability Certificate is not examined. The documents which the Appellant has produced during his chief-examination is referred in paragraph No.4 of his Affidavit. I have gone through the cross-examination. I do not find there is challenge to the Disability Certificate. Ms.Mittal submitted that as observed in case of Raj Kumar V/s. Ajay Kumar and Another1, the doctor needs to be examined. Mr.Rane relied upon the observations in case of Vinayak s/o Bapu Ghegade V/s. Shivahi s/o Sadashiv Bandal and Another2. 5. In paragraph No.17, the Tribunal has observed:- “The Petitioner has claimed Compensation of Rs.2,25,000/- towards permanent Disablement caused to the Petitioner. However, as he has sustained Thirty per cent Permanent and 1 (2011) 1 SCC 343 2 First Appeal No.733 of 2024 : 8th May 2025 : High Court of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad Satish Sangar 3/6 902-FA-1643-2006.doc Final Disablement, he is entitled for Compensation of Rs.30,000/- which includes Compensation for shock, pain and suffering etc.”. However, in paragraph No.18, the Tribunal has said that:- “he is not entitled for compensation towards loss of income or supervisory cost.” The income is from agriculture. However, the agricultural land does not stand in the name of the Appellant. The 7X12 extract at Exhibit– 36 are produced. That is why, the Tribunal observed that, “The Appellant was neither cultivating nor supervising the agricultural lands”. In the cross-examination, the questions were put to the Appellant. The half of the land is lying fallow. He has no documentary evidence to show his income. 6. So for two reasons compensation on account of ‘loss of income’ is denied. One, he could not substantiate the income from agriculture and second, there is no clear finding about physical and functional disability. In fact, the Tribunal ought to have given a finding about both type of disabilities. 7. After hearing them, I conclude that there is no 30% disability but it can certainly be to the extent of 20% functional disability. Because, if there is shortening of leg, certainly it will cause trouble to the Satish Sangar 4/6 902-FA-1643-2006.doc Appellant while working in agricultural field. Even though doctor is not examined, during cross-examination of Claimant, disability is not challenged. With this line of cross, the Claimant has not examined the doctor. 8. Now, coming to the income, Mr.Rane relied upon observations in case of Jagdish Narayan V/s. Karan Singh and Ors.3, wherein the Supreme Court applied the principle of ‘notional income’ for coolie and considered ‘monthly income’ of Rs.4,500/-. The Tribunal ought to have applied the test of ‘notional income’, if he is agriculturist. I think he ought to have given at least Rs.6,000/- per month, because I have seen various agricultural crops are taken from those lands. Being son of the owner of the land, he must be doing some work and earning some income. I quantified to Rs.6,000/- per month. Considering his age, the future prospects comes to 20%. That is how, now the compensation on account of ‘loss of future income’ is calculated as follows:- Rs.6,000/- (Income) X 20% (Future prospects) = Rs.1200/- Multiplier 16:- Rs.1200/-X12X16/- Rs.2,30,400/- Received amount:- Rs.1,57,850/- Enhanced amount:- Rs.72,550/- 3 Civil Appeal No….. of 2026 @ Special Leave Petition (C) No.18945 of 2024 : Supreme Court of India : 7th July 2026 Satish Sangar 5/6 902-FA-1643-2006.doc 9. Hence, the following order is passed:- -: O R D E R :- (a) The Appeal is allowed. (b) The Respondents are directed to pay Rs.72,550/- to the Appellant within a period of 12 weeks from passing of the order along with interest at the rate of 7.5%. (c) Additional Court fee be paid before the Tribunal. 10. In the light of the above observations, the Appeal is disposed of. [S. M. MODAK, J.] Satish Sangar 6/6