Shri. P.R. Balakrishnan (Desd) Lrs. vs Shri. P. Athiannan And Ors.

CNR No : HCBM010206122003

901-FA-1044-03.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO.1044 OF 2003
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION (ST) NO.18919 OF 2003
Shri. P. R. Balakrishnan (Decd) ]
Through His Legal Representatives, ]
1. Smt. Rajeshwari Balkrishnan ]
Age 40 years, Widow. ]
2. Kum. R. Balkrishnan ]
Age 17 years (minor daughter ]
3. Smt. R. J. Thankamma ]
aged 73 years ]
(Widowed mother) ]
All residing at Kizhakethil House ]
Kavumbhagum Thiruvalla Kerala State ] ...Appellants
V/s.
1. Shri. P. Athiannan son of ]
A. Paramsivam, Bus Owner ]
3-A, Venkat Roa Road, Salem ]
Tamil Nadu ]
2. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. ]
24, Whites Road, Madras 14 ] ...Respondents
*
Mr. N. R. Bubna a/w. A. Advocate for the Appellants.
rsk 1/9
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 19:20:35

901-FA-1044-03.doc
A. Acchra
Mrs.Varsha Chavan Advocate for the Respondents.
*
CORAM : S. M. MODAK, J.
th
DATE : 13 OCTOBER 2026
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr. Bubna, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms.
Varsh Chavan, learned counsel for the Respondent.
2. The only point which is raised in this appeal is about the
quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal as per the award
dated 27 February 2003. The compensation awarded is Rs.6,35,000/-
along with interest of 9%. It is inadequate, is the grievance.
th
3. It is true that the accident took place on 15 March 1987 and the
claim petition was filed by one P. R. Balkrishnan. During pendency of
nd
the petition, he died on 2 May 1995. The amendment was carried
out in the title clause and not in the claim petition. It is recorded by the
Tribunal in paragraph 9 of the judgment. After his death his wife gave
evidence. The discussion about the compensation finds place in
rsk 2/9
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 19:20:35

901-FA-1044-03.doc
paragraph 18. According to Mr. Bubna, the deceased Balkrishnan was
bedridden and he was on bed for 8 years. According to him the
Tribunal has granted only Rs.25,000/- towards medical expenses and it
ought to have been Rs.2 Lakhs. He invited my attention to paragraph
No.3 of the evidence given by Smt. Rajeshwari, widow of the deceased.
It is true that there were 9 heads described by her in paragraph 3. It
does not include only medical expenses. So the claim for enhancement
has to be considered for every head separately. In nutshell they are as
follows:
1. For travelling and conveyance Rs.5,000
2. Special Diet (for the period of 7 Rs.65,000/-
years)
3. For use of urinari disposable bags
daily costing about Rs.15 to Rs.20 per
bag
Rs.50,000/-
4. Travelling expenses by flight from Rs.3,000/-
Bombay to Trivendrum
5. For treatment in Aurvedic Rs.25,000/-
6. For Naturopathy treatment Rs.15,000/-
(travelling & conveyance and stay)
7. Charges for helper (additional) for all Rs.25,000/-
these years
8. Cost of special wheel chair and water Rs.4,000/-
bed
rsk 3/9
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 19:20:35

901-FA-1044-03.doc
9. For treatment in G. K. hospital in Rs.9,500/-
Tiruvella, Kerala State
Total Rs.2,00,000/-
4. The Tribunal in paragraph 18 has granted the following heads
of compensation:
Head Amount granted by
MACT, Thane
Amount payable as per
Pranay Sethi’s judgment
Salary- 2500/-
Dependency Rs. 3,00,000/-
Add:Future Prospects
towards loss of
Rs.1,250/- p.m.
income (it is
=Rs.3,750/-
calculated as Rs.2,500
Annual Salary=45,000/-
per month towards
less Personal Expenses-
salary and 1/3rd is
considered as personal
1/3rd =15,000
expenses and
Dependency Rs.30,000/-
dependency was
Multiplier-15=
considered as 1,667/-.
Rs.4,50,000/- (loss of
The annual income
income)
and multiplier of 15 is
rsk 4/9
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 19:20:35

901-FA-1044-03.doc
applied,
Loss of Rs.10,000/- Rs.48,000/-
consortium
Admittedly, as per
observations in Pranay
Sethi’s judgment the
consortium compensation
should be Rs.48,000/-.
Pain and Rs.1,50,000/- Rs.1,50,000/-
suffering
Rs.18,000/-
Loss of Estate Rs.1,00,000/-.
According to Ms.
Chavan it should be
Rs.18,000/- as per
observations in
paragraph 59.8 in
Pranay Sethi’s
judgment.
Special diet and
Rs.50,000/- Rs.50,000/-
conveyance
rsk 5/9
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 19:20:35

901-FA-1044-03.doc
Rs.25,000/-
Medical
Rs.25,000/-.
expenses
According to Mr.
Bubna it ought to
have been
Rs.2,00,000/- which
is disputed by Ms.
Chavan.
Funeral
Nil Rs.18,000/-
expenses
Total Rs.6,35,000/- Rs.7,59,000/-
5. When injured Balkrishnan was alive for 8 years he must have
incurred expenses. When the claim petition was filed under Section
110A and under Section 92A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, he was
alive and has claimed compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-. It is true there
is no need to give detail elaboration about the heads of the
compensation but when his wife has filed affidavit of examination-in-
chief, she has narrated Rs.2,00,000/- under the heads as mentioned
above.
rsk 6/9
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 19:20:35

901-FA-1044-03.doc
6. Out of them she has described the amount of Rs.8,000/- towards
travelling and Rs.65,000/- towards the special diet. Out of that the
Tribunal has granted Rs.50,000/-. Considering the circumstances
available, I do not find any enhancement required.
7. If Rs.73,000/- is excluded from Rs.2,00,000/- as pleaded by Mr.
Bubna, the amount claimed for reimbursement of medical expenses
comes to Rs.1,27,000/-. Out of that the Tribunal has granted
Rs.25,000/-. So the issue is whether enhancement can be granted for
that head. It is disputed by learned advocate, Ms. Chavan. It is true that
the supporting document for incurring expenses are not pointed out to
me. If there could have been supporting documents though not for
every rupee, this Court could have certainly considered enhancement
on account of medical expenses. It is true that the author of those
documents need not be examined but there has to be some supporting
document. Unfortunately, it is not there. It is also true that no
amendment is carried out in the claim petition after the death except
the title clause.
8. The Tribunal has decided the claim petition as if it was petition
for claiming compensation on account of death.
rsk 7/9
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 19:20:35

901-FA-1044-03.doc
9. For the above discussion this Court feels that there can be only
enhancement of consortium, funeral expenses and enhancement on
account of future prospects. He was aged about 38 years. As per
Pranay Sethi’s judgment future prospects should be 50%. In earlier
paragraph, I have elaborated the increase. Though the argument of Ms.
Chavan for reduction of interest sounds attractive, it does not appeal
me. Same will be the interest rate.
10. In view of that, modification is required. Hence the following
order:
ORDER
(a) The Appeal is allowed.
th
(b) The Award dated 27 February 2003 passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal–Thane is modified as follows:-
(i) Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to pay
jointly and severally compensation of Rs.1,24,000/-to
the Claimants along with the interest at the rate of 9%
per annum from the date of Claim Petition till the date
of payment.
(ii) The Claimants are directed to pay additional
Court Fee.
(iii) Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to deposit
rsk 8/9
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 19:20:35

901-FA-1044-03.doc
amount before the Tribunal within 10 weeks from the
date of uploading of the order along with interest from
the date of petition till realization.
(iv) The Tribunal to distribute amount amongst
claimants.
11. In the light of the above observations, the Appeal is disposed of.
12. Pending Applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
[S. M. MODAK, J.]
rsk 9/9
Uploaded on - 27/10/2026 Downloaded on - 27/10/2026 19:20:35
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)