Pune: Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company has lost its appeal in the Bombay High Court against the 2015 decision of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) in Pune. The case involves Sagar Dumbre (44), a resident of Otur in Junnar, and tractor owner Ravindra Phapale.
In August 2010, Dumbre suffered severe injuries when a tractor (MH-17/N-9576) ran over his right leg while he was working on his agricultural land at Dumbaremala. Despite undergoing surgery at Dhande Hospital in Alep, Pune, his injuries necessitated the amputation of his leg below the knee.
Following the incident, local police registered a case against the tractor driver. At the time, the tractor was insured under a valid policy owned by Phapale. Dumbre, represented by advocate Yogesh Pande, filed a compensation claim of Rs. 10 lakh, citing his income of Rs. 10,000 per month from agriculture, milk, and poultry businesses.
The Tribunal concluded that the accident resulted from negligent driving and acknowledged Dumbre’s subsequent loss of livelihood. It determined that the injury led to 70% disability, causing an equivalent reduction in his earning capacity, especially regarding agricultural labor. Consequently, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 16,04,005.
Even though the tractor was covered under a ‘Farmer’s Package Policy’, the Tribunal held that Dumbre’s risk was covered, obligating the insurer and the tractor owner to pay the compensation.
Additionally, the Tribunal provided Rs. 8,000 for travel expenses and Rs. 10,000 for a special diet, acknowledging the extensive medical consultations and physiotherapy required for recovery.
The court also recognized that the crush injury included vascular damage, contributing to Dumbre’s long-term disability. The compensation for loss of income was calculated as follows:
Monthly Income: Rs. 8,000
Annual Income: Rs. 8,000 x 12 = Rs. 96,000
Multiplied by 15 years: Rs. 96,000 x 15 = Rs. 14,40,000
70% Disability Factor: Rs. 14,40,000 x 70% = Rs. 10,08,000
Advocate highlighted that Dumbre uses an artificial limb costing Rs. 1.5 to 2 lakh, which requires replacement every three years. The Tribunal had granted Rs. 2 lakh for ‘pain and suffering’ and Rs. 1.5 lakh for ‘discomfort and loss of enjoyment of life.’
However, advocate argued that the awarded compensation did not adequately reflect the severity and lifelong impact of Dumbre’s injury. He urged the court to consider an increase in the compensation under these categories to ensure justice for the victim.
