1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
First Appeal No. 368 of 1996
Appellant : Shivaji son of Namdeo Sonune, aged
about 32 years, occ: Agriculturist,
resident of Lonar, District Buldana
versus
Respondents : 1) Maharashtra State Road Transport
Corporation, through its Divisional
Manager, Buldana
2) Jamla Chinga Rathod, aged about 35
years, occ: Driver, MSRTC, Mehkar Depot,
district “Buldana
Mr S.D. Desai, Advocate for appellant
Mr V.G. Wankhede, Advocate for respondents no. 1 and 2.
Coram : A.P. Bhangale, J
Dated : 23rd June 2010
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:03:08 :::
2
Oral Judgment
1. Appellant was granted interim compensation of Rs.
12,000/- under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Appellant is held not entitled to additional compensation on
determination of his claim under Section 166 of the Act.
This is how he is aggrieved against the judgment and award
passed on 5.12.1995 by the Member, Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Buldana in Claim Petition No. 5 of 1992.
2. Learned igcounsel for the appellant contends that
there was sufficient space for the bus to pass through which
fact is sufficient to establish that the driver was rash and
negligent in driving the vehicle. He contends that removal
of testicle, even according to the Tribunal, amounts to
privation of lump which is a permanent disability and,
therefore, rejection of claim is bad in law. Due to the
accident, appellant has lost his ability to conceive a woman.
Learned counsel for respondents has, on the other hand,
supported the award.
3. Dr Vijay Chopde (witness no.2) examined by the
appellant has admitted that with one testicle the injured can
have reproductive capacity and he is able to give birth to a
child. He has denied the suggestion that a person without
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:03:08 :::
3
one testicle cannot conceive a woman. In cross-examination he
has deposed that removal of one testicle is not an impediment
to enjoy sex and physical capacity also of such person
remains unaffected.
4. On perusal of record I find that the appellant had
not produced any bills to establish that he had spent Rs.
10,000/- or so over purchase of medicines. No record as to
the hospitalization of appellant for five weeks has been
adduced on record. ig Doctor who was examined by appellant,
did not depose anything about injury to right leg of
appellant. It is doctor’s evidence that appellant’s over-all
physical capacity has remained unaffected and, therefore,
claim of the appellant that he is unable to earn as a coolie,
is without any substance. Loss of his sexual capacity is
also not established. On the contrary, doctor has deposed
that the appellant can conceive a woman and can have normal
sex.
5. The appellant was granted interim compensation of
Rs. 12000/- under Section 140 of the Act. The finding
rendered by the Tribunal that the claimant is entitled to
additional compensation of Rs. 7000/- on all counts,
therefore, needs no interference.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:03:08 :::
4
6. In the result, appeal fails and is accordingly
dismissed with no order as to costs.
A.P. BHANGALE, J
joshi
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:03:08 :::