Gujarat High Court
Bharatbhai Ratnshi Toprani vs Kana Sava Ayar on 24 December, 2021
Bench: Hemant M. Prachchhak
C/FA/8/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/12/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 8 of 2007
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed No
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? Yes
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copyNo
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial questionNo
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
BHARATBHAI RATNSHI TOPRANI
Versus
KANA SAVA AYAR & 4 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MEHUL S SHAH(772) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Defendant(s) No. 5
MS E.SHAILAJA(2671) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
RULE UNSERVED(68) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK
Date : 24/12/2021
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal is filed by the original claimant
challenging the impugned judgment and award passed by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Katchch at Bhuj dated
25.04.2006 in MACP No. 329 of 1995, whereby the Tribunal has
awarded the compensation of Rs. 1,09,300/- to the injured.
C/FA/8/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/12/2021
2. The brief facts of the present case are as under.
2.1 On 14.12.1994 an accident was occurred. The appellant -
original claimants were returning from Vadodara to Bhuj in
Luxury Bus bearing registration No. GJ-2-T-2642. The opponent
No.2, who was in the employment of opponent No.4, was
driving the said bus, when the said bus reached near Surajbari
check Post on National Highway. At that time, a truck bearing
registration No. GJ-12-T-6972. Late Shri Vasam Vishram was
driving the said truck in course of his employment with
opponent No.1. Both the drivers were driving their vehicles
rashly, reckless, negligently and at an excessive speed. They
were driving their vechicles without observing the rules of the
road. At that time, a truck dashed and collided with Luxury
bus. The applicant sustained injuries and consequent
permanent disablement due to the said injuries.
3. Learned advocate for the appellant- original claimant has
submitted that the amount which is awarded by the Tribunal is
not just and proper. It is submitted that the Tribunal has not
properly appreciated the facts of the present case and not
applied the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well
as this Court. It is further contended that the Tribunal has not
considered the disablement of the appellant in its true and
prospective spirit and while calculating the quantum, the
Tribunal has committed a grave error.
It is also contended that the Tribunal has committed an
error by not applying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Syed Sadiq and others Vs. Divisional
C/FA/8/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/12/2021
Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd., (2014) 2 SCC
735 and Parminder Singh Vs. New India Insurance Company
reported in AIR 2019 SC 3128.
4. As against that, learned advocate for the respondent -
Insurance Company has raised objection that the present
appellant was working as a labourer at a Tea stall and therefore
considering the disablement, there is no future loss of income
and the impugned award passed by the Tribunal is just and
proper and no interference is required to be called for. Learned
advocate for the respondent further contended that the
amount awarded to the appellant is in consonance with the
facts of the present case and considering the disability, the
amount awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper and no
enhancement is required to be made. It is submitted that the
present appeal requires to be dismissed.
5. Having heard learned advocates for the respective
parties and having considered the material on record, this
Court finds that the present appeal requires to be interfered
and the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal
requires to be modified and substituted in view of the ratio laid
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Syed Sadiq and
Parminder Singh (supra). The calculation of which are as under :
Particulars Tribunal awarded Proposed claim
Income (per month) 1,500/- 1,500/-
Prospective rise in income (30%) 0 5,00/-
Monthly income 1,500/- 2,000/-
Functional disability (40%) 285/- 840/-
Total Monthly income 285/- 840/-
Yearly income 3,420/- 10,080/-
C/FA/8/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/12/2021
Future loss of income 51,300/- 1,51,200/-
Pain shock and suffering 15,000/- 50,000/-
Medical expenses 25,000/- 25,000/-
Attendant charges 3,000/- 3,000/-
Nutritious food 3,000/- 3,000/-
Transportation charges 3,000/- 3,000/-
Actual loss of income 9,000/- 9,000/-
Loss of amenities 0 30,000/-
Awarded amount 1,09,300/- 2,74,200/-
Proposed enhancement 1,64,900/-
6. In view of above, the following order is passed.
(i) The present appeal is allowed.
(ii) The impugned judgment and award passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Katchch at Bhuj dated 25.04.2006 in
MACP No. 329 of 1995 is hereby modified and substituted to
the extent that the present appellant - original claimant
entitled to get additional amount of compensation of Rs.
1,64,900/- with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of
application till the date of realization.
(iii) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
enhanced amount of compensation within a period of eight
weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
(iv) The order of apportionment and disbursement will remain
as per the order of the Tribunal.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
SALIM/
