Gujarat High Court
Madhuben Liladhar Satodiya vs Sukhdev Sajubha Jadeja on 6 December, 2021
Bench: R.M.Chhaya
C/FA/1129/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/12/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1129 of 2010
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
and
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be
allowed to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the
fair copy of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial
question of law as to the interpretation
of the Constitution of India or any order
made thereunder ?
==========================================================
MADHUBEN LILADHAR SATODIYA
Versus
SUKHDEV SAJUBHA JADEJA & 4 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VH KANARA(1881) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
DELETED(20) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
MR GC MAZMUDAR(1193) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
MR HEMANT S SHAH(756) for the Defendant(s) No. 5
MR HG MAZMUDAR(1194) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED(64) for the Defendant(s) No. 2,4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
and
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT
Date : 06/12/2021
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA)
C/FA/1129/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/12/2021
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the common
judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal (Aux), Jamnagar in MACP no. 261 of
1997 dated 12.05.2005, the original claimant has
preferred the present appeal under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as
the "Act").
2. Heard Mr. Kaash Thakkar, learned advocate for
Mr. V.H. Kanara for the appellant-original claimant,
Mr. H.G. Mazmudar, learned advocate for respondent
no.3, the insurance company of the Matador, and Mr.
Hemant Shah, learned advocate for respondent no.5
i.e., insurance company of the fiat car being New
India Assurance Co. Ltd. Though served, no one
appears for the other respondents.
4. We have also perused the original record and
proceedings of the Tribunal.
5. The following facts emerge from the record of
the appeal -
5.1 As per the record, the accident took place on
20.12.1996. It is the case of the claimant that she
and her husband, i.e., deceased Dr. Liladhar B.
Satodiya were travelling in a Fiat car bearing
registration No. GUT- 7418 from Jamnagar to Gondal.
The record indicates that when the car reached
Rajkot-Paddhari highway at about 3.00 pm, suddenly
the driver of the impeding vehicle being Metador
bearing registration no.GJ-3U-8091 came there and
C/FA/1129/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/12/2021
dashed with the fiat car driven by one Samad Bhimsinh
Ahir. The record indicates that the deceased Dr.
Liladhar sustained serious injuries and died on the
spot whereas, the present appellant-original claimant
Madhuben also sustained serious injuries in the said
accident. An FIR was lodged with the jurisdictional
police station and the present claim petition was
filed claiming compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/-.
5.2 The claimant adduced oral evidence and was
examined at exhibit 77, Dr. Jayantilal Saini at
exhibit, 96, Rameshbhai Raval at exhibit 99. The
insurance company also examined one Sukhdevsinh
Jadeja at exhibit 112 who was the driver of the
Matador and one Samant Bhimsinh Ahir at exhibit 119,
the driver of the fiat car. Over and above the same,
the claimants relied upon plethora of documentary
evidence such as FIR at exhibit 121, charge-sheet at
exhibit 125, panchnama at exhibit 44, inquest
panchnama at exhibit 45, driving license of driver of
metador at exhibit 113, Fitness certificate of
metador at exhibit 115, permit of metador at exhibit
114, driving license of driver of fiat car at exhibit
122, RC book of fiat car at exhibit 123, receipt of
insurance policy of fiat car at exhibit 124, medical
bills at exhibit 78, injury certificate of the
claimant at exhibit 97, disability certificate at
exhibit 98.
5.2 The Tribunal after considering the FIR at
exhibit 121 and panchnama at exhibit 44 and oral
deposition of Sukhdevsinh Jadeja at exhbiit 112 and
C/FA/1129/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/12/2021
Samad Bhimsinh Ahir at exhibit 119, came to the
conclusion that the driver of both the vehicles were
negligent and further held that driver of the Matador
was negligent to the extent of 90% whereas driver of
Fiat car was negligent to the tune of 10%. The
Tribunal based on the judgment cited, assessed the
income of the appellant herein-original claimant at
Rs.1,250/- p.m. and yearly income of Rs. 15,000/-
p.a. The Tribunal also awarded prospective income
and assessed a sum of Rs.22,500/-. The permanent
disability of the body as a whole of the claimant was
assessed at 10% and thus, awarded Rs.2,250/- towards
future loss of income. Considering the aged of the
claimant to be 38 years, applied multiplier of 12 and
awarded Rs.27,000/- under the head of loss of
prospective income. Considering the deposition of he
claimant at exhibit 77 and the nature of injuries and
period of hospitalistaion, awarded Rs.6,000/- towards
pain, shock and suffering. The Tribunal also awarded
a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards medicines based on the
vills produced at exhibit 78. Thus, the Tribunal
awarded a sum of Rs. 46,500/- under different heads
and deducting 10% towards negligence of the driver of
fiat car, awarded total compensation of Rs.41,850/-.
Being aggrieved by the same, as aforesaid, the
appellant-original claimant has preferred the present
appeal.
6. Mr. Kaash Thakkar, learned advocate for the
appellant-original claimant contended that the income
assessed by the Tribunal is very less. It was
C/FA/1129/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/12/2021
contended that even though the original claimant was
a housewife, the determination of income at Rs.1250/-
is very less, which deserves to be increased at
Rs.2,000/- per month. It was further contended by
Mr. Thakkar that considering the age of the appellant
to be 38 on the date of the accident, the appropriate
multiplier should be 15 and not 12 as awarded by the
Tribunal. It was further contened by Mr. Thakkar,
learned advocate for the appellant that the Tribunal
has erred in considering the disability of the
appellant of 10% of the body as a whole and has not
appreciated the disability certificate produced on
record at exhibit 98. It was contended by Mr.
Thakkar that the appellant had sustained grievous
injuries on different part of body including spinal
cord and thus, it was contended that the Tribunal
ought to have considered disability of the body as a
whole to the extent of 20%. It was contended by Mr.
Thakkar, learned advocate for the appellant contended
that the injuries sustained by the appellant were
grave and the appellant had to undergo
hospitalisation and treatment for a longer period and
thus, the amount towards pain, shock and suffering
deserves to be enhanced appropriately. It was
contended by Mr. Thakkar that the Tribuanl has erred
in awarding very less amount towards special diet,
transportation and attendance is meagre, which may be
enhanced appropriately. On the aforesaid grounds,
it was contended by Mr. On the aforesaid grounds,
Mr. Thakkar contended that the appeal be allowed as
prayed for and the impugned judgment and award
C/FA/1129/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/12/2021
deserves to be modified accordingly.
7. Per contra, Mr. Mazmudar, learned advocate
appearing for respondent no.3 Insurance Company
contended that there is no evidence on record to show
the income of the appellant-original claimant and
therefore, considering the income of the year 1996
even of a housewife, the Tribunal has correctly
assessed the same at Rs. 1,250/- per month. It was
contended by Mr. Majmudar that are no serious
injuries and therefore, the Tribunal has rightly
awarded Rs.6,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering.
It was further contended by Mr. Mazmudar that the
Tribunal has rightly assessed the disability of the
appellant to the extent of 10% of he body as a whole
and the same need not require any alteration. It was
further contended that even the amount awarded by the
Tribunal under other heads are just and proper. On
the aforesaid grounds, it was contended by Mr.
Mazmudar that the appeal being meritless, deserves to
be dismissed.
8. No other or further submissions have been made
by the learned counsel appearing for the respective
parties.
9. Considering the date of the accident to be
22.12.1996, the Tribunal has awarded very less amount
towards income of the appellant and the same deserves
to enhanced at Rs.2,000/- per month. The pain, shock
and suffering, which the appellant-claimant has
C/FA/1129/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/12/2021
undergone, as such, has to be considered on the basis
of the fact that she was an eye witness to the
incident. Her husband Dr. Liladhar sustained serious
injuries and had died on the spot and she and her son
had seen her dying. It is also on record that she
has taken taken treatment for more than 2-3 fractures
and even her spine was affected. In light of the
aforesaid, we deem it fit to award Rs.25,000/- as
compensation under the head of pain, shock and
suffering. Similarly, upon re-appreciation of the
evidence in the form of disability certificate at
exhibit 98, since the appellant has sustained serious
injuries and had 2-3 fractures on different parts of
the body and even on her spine, the disability of the
body as a whole requires to be considered at 20%
instead of 10%. The age of the appellant was 38
years on the date of the accident, and hence, the
appropriate multiplier would be 15 and not 12 as
awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has also
awarded very meagre amount of Rs. 2,000/- each
towards special diet, transportation and attendant
charges and same is enhanced to Rs.5,000/-. The
petitioner would be entitled to Rs. 4,000/- towards
actual loss of income instead of Rs.2,500/-. Having
come to the aforesaid conclusion and upon re-
calculating the compensation, the same would be as
under -
Rs.2,000/- (income) X 20% (disability) =
Rs.400/- X 12 X 15 (multiplier) = Rs.72,000/-
(Future Loss of Income)
C/FA/1129/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/12/2021
Future Loss of income - Rs. 72,000/-
Pain, shock and suffering- Rs. 25,000/-
Medicines - Rs. 5,000/-
Actual loss of income - Rs. 4,000/-
Special diet - Rs. 5,000/-
Transportation - Rs. 5,000/-
Attendant charges - Rs. 5,000/-
--------------
Total compensation Rs.1,21,000/-
--------------
12. Thus, the total compensation would come to
Rs.1,21,000/-. As the Tribunal has awarded
compensation of Rs.46,500/-, the appellant-original
claimant would be entitled to an additional amount of
Rs.74,500/- with interest as awarded by the Tribunal
on the enhanced amount. The additional amount shall
be deposited by the insurance companies in the same
ratio of 90:10 with the Tribunal within a period of 2
months from the date of receipt of this judgment and
order. The impugned judgment and award stands
modified to the aforesaid extent. The appeal is thus
partly allowed to the aforesaid extent However,
there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal.
Registry is directed to remit the record and
proceedings back to the Tribunal forthwith.
(R.M.CHHAYA,J)
(MAUNA M. BHATT,J)
BIJOY B. PILLAI
