Gujarat High Court
Puriben Mavjibhai Parmar vs Khodabhai Chanabhai Rathod on 26 November, 2021
Bench: Mauna M. Bhatt
C/FA/646/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/11/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 646 of 2009
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
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 ?
==========================================================
PURIBEN MAVJIBHAI PARMAR
Versus
KHODABHAI CHANABHAI RATHOD & 2 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
ADVOCATE NOTICE SERVED(81) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR PALAK H THAKKAR(3455) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED(64) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT
Date : 26/11/2021
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Feeling aggrieved and dis-satisfied by the judgement and
award dated 2.9.2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal
(Aux.) at Rajkot in MACP No.42 of 1998, this appeal being First
Appeal No.646/2009 has been preferred by the appellant - original
C/FA/646/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/11/2021
claimant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
(hereinafter referred as "the Act").
2. The following facts emerge from record of the appeal.
2.1. The appellant - original claimant, on 9.12.1997 after
completing her duty was going on foot to her village Ratanpur. At
that time, one Chhakdo Rickshaw bearing registration No.GJ-10T-
6517 came from behind in full speed and dashed with the appellant
which resulted into serious injuries. The accident occurred due to
rash and negligent driving of opponent No.1 (Driver). The
appellant was admitted to the hospital at Rajkot, surgery was done,
plate was inserted which resulted into permanent dis-ability. The
claimant filed Motor Accident Claim Petition No.42 of 1998 under
Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-.
2.2. The Tribunal upon appreciation of oral and documentary
evidence allowed the Claim Petition in part and awarded total
compensation of Rs.66,470/- under different heads as under-
Particulars Amount (Rs.)
Future loss of income Rs.33,660/-
Actual loss of income Rs.4,500/-
Pain, shock and sufferings Rs.15,000/-
Treatment & Medicines Rs.10,310/-
Transportation, attendant charges Rs.3,000/-
and special diet
Total Rs.66,470/-
C/FA/646/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/11/2021
3. Though served, no one appeared for the appellant - original
claimant. Mr. Palak Thakkar, learned advocate appeared for the
Insurance Company - Respondent No. 3. The Insurance Company
has not denied the liability and, therefore, the presence of
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 is not essential for deciding this appeal.
4. It is the case of appellant that the Tribunal has erroneously
considered income of the appellant at Rs.1500/- p.m. only. She
was earning Rs.1500/- p.m. doing labour work at IOC + Rs.1000 for
doing agricultural work. The dis-ability considered at 17% instead
of 35% is also erroneous. It is further stated that age of the
appellant is erroneously taken as 52 instead of 42 and therefore
consequential multiplier is also incorrect. It is stated that the
appeal may be allowed and higher compensation as claimed may be
granted.
5. I have heard Mr. Palak Thakkar, learned advocate for the
Insurance Company - Respondent No.3. Relying upon the
documents available on record, he submitted that the compensation
awarded to the appellant is just and proper. There is no infirmity
in the award of the Tribunal and requested for dismissal of appeal.
6. I have perused and considered the record and proceedings
and documents available on record.
7. For the income, it is contended in the appeal that the
claimant was serving as sweeper in IOC plant and her salary was
Rs.1500/- p.m. Additionally she was doing agricultural work and
earning Rs.1000/- p.m. Further it is contended that disability to
the extent of 35% is to be considered by the Tribunal. It was also
contended in appeal that age of the claimant was wrongly taken as
C/FA/646/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/11/2021
52 years instead of 42 years.
8. Upon re-appreciation of evidence, I am of the opinion that
the Tribunal has considered the documents and evidence available
on record in its correct perspective. The total compensation
awarded to the appellant is just and proper for the following
reasons.
1. For income of the claimant, the Tribunal
has considered that the claimant was working
as sweeper in IOC and earning Rs.1500/-
p.m. This has been supported by the cross-
examination of the appellant. There was no
evidence in relation to other income. Even
as per the Minimum Wages Act, minimum
wages in the year 1997 was Rs.1400/- p.m.
2. The dis-ability was considered at 17% as
both the parties at the time of hearing had
agreed for the same. Therefore, there is no
error in dis-ability being considered at 17%.
3. For age of the claimant, the Tribunal has
relied upon the statement of claimant
recorded by the police during investigation .
There was no other evidence produced by the
claimant for age. Considering the age of the
appellant as 52 years, the multiplier applied
of 11 is correct.
C/FA/646/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/11/2021
4. In addition to that, the Tribunal has
awarded Rs.4500/- p.m. for actual loss of
income for a period of 3 months and for
pain, shock and sufferings Rs.15,000/-. For
the medical treatment relying upon the
relevant documents (medical bills and
certificate) an amount of Rs.10,310/- has
been awarded. Rs.3000/- has been awarded
for transportation, attendant charges and
special diet. The Tribunal has awarded total
compensation of Rs.66,470/- with 9% interest
from the date of filing of the Claim Petition
till its realization.
9. For the afore-stated reasons, in my opinion, the award passed
by the Tribunal is based on the appreciation of documents and
evidence on record. No interference is called for by this Court for
the just compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
10. For the reasons stated herein above, the appeal deserves to be
dismissed and the same is dismissed. However, there shall be no
order as to costs.
11. Registry is directed to send back the Record and Proceedings
of the case to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.
(MAUNA M. BHATT,J)
NAIR SMITA V.
