NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3033/2008 ORDER DATED: 18/09/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3033 of 2008
==========================================================
MAYUR PRANLAL GOR
Versus
RAMPAL MORE & 1 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR VC THOMAS(5476) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
NOTICE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
Date : 18/09/2023
ORAL ORDER
1. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal at Bhuj, Kachchh (MACP No.715 of 2004), the original injured has preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
2. On 12.09.2004, the appellant-claimant sustained injuries in a road accident when the motorbike which he was driving slipped down at the place of accident. He filed a claim petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act, claiming compensation of Rs.14,00,000/-. It is the case of the appellant that, he sustained a spinal injury, resulting into permanent partial disablement, as there is complete paraplegia in lower limbs. As per medical evidence, the doctor has opined 95% permanent partial disability. In these background facts, the appellant claimed amounts under the various heads. The tribunal vide its judgment and award dated 08.10.2007 passed an award of Rs.7,72,400/-, directing the insurance company to Page 1 of 3 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 20 20:40:13 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3033/2008 ORDER DATED: 18/09/2023 undefined pay the said amount with the interest @ 9%.
3. Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati, learned counsel for the appellant, has submitted that, the judgment and award is against the facts and statutory provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act. He submitted that, the tribunal ought to have appreciated that, looking to the provisions of general damages, the claimant is entitled for pecuniary as well as non-pecuniary damages as determined by the Apex Court in its various judgments. Lastly, he submitted that, the actual amount of medical expenses of Rs.5,00,000/- is not being considered by the tribunal and findings in this regard are erroneous and contrary to the statutory provisions.
4. Mr. V.M. Thomas, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company has submitted that, the claim before the tribunal was under Section 163 of the Motor Vehicle Act and therefore the tribunal has no alternate but to follow the second schedule of the Act. Therefore, he submitted that, the award passed is otherwise also against the various heads mentioned in the second schedule for which the tribunal could not have awarded the amount.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, the issue fell for consideration of this Court is whether the amount of compensation determined by the tribunal needs interference?
6. The facts of accident are not in dispute. The appellant himself being a driver of the motorbike caused the accident. It Page 2 of 3 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 20 20:40:13 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3033/2008 ORDER DATED: 18/09/2023 undefined is settled position of law that, the deceased/injured in a motor accident claim must be a third party to maintain a claim under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act. In the decision of Ningamma (2009 ACJ 2020), the Apex Court, after considering the provisions of Section 163A, has held that, a person i.e. deceased or injured who stepped into shoes of the owner of the motor vehicle could not have claimed compensation under Section 163A of the Act. In the facts of the present case, the appellant being a driver of the bike has stepped into shoes of the owner of the vehicle. Thus, the original claim filed by the appellant itself was not maintainable. In such circumstances, this Court is of considered view that, the appeal, seeking enhancement of compensation on this legal ground is not maintainable.
7. The claim tribunal maximum awarded Rs.15,000/- towards the medical expenses. The second schedule of the Act limits the amount of medical expenses upto Rs.15,000/- only. Thus, therefore, the question does not arise to award more amount then the limit prescribed in the second schedule. The tribunal has not committed any error of law while not considering the amount of medical expenses to the extent of Rs.5,00,000/-.
8. For the reasons stated above, present appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merits. Accordingly ,the appeal stands dismissed with cost. Decree be drawn accordingly.
(ILESH J. VORA,J) TAUSIF SAIYED Page 3 of 3 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 20 20:40:13 IST 2023