Gujarat High Court
Bhanabhai Natthubhai Ziniya vs Ratansinh Dahyabhai Rajput on 29 November, 2021
Bench: Hemant M. Prachchhak
C/FA/3609/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/11/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3609 of 2011
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: Sd/-
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 ? No
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy No
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question No
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
================================================================
BHANABHAI NATTHUBHAI ZINIYA
Versus
RATANSINH DAHYABHAI RAJPUT & 1 other(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
for the Appellant(s) No. 1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4
MR VILAV K BHATIA(5338) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR HARDIK C RAWAL(719) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
RULE SERVED(64) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK
Date : 29/11/2021
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This is an appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act) by the
appellant - original claimant calling in question the correctness
C/FA/3609/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/11/2021
and legality of the judgment and award dated 29.03.2008 passed
by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Rural) at
Mirzapur (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in M.A.C.P.
No.880 of 2005 and group of claim petitions, whereunder, claim
petition filed by the claimant has been partly allowed and total
compensation of Rs.78,300/- with interest at the rate of 9% per
annum has been awarded.
2. Facts in nutshell which has led to filing of this appeal are as
under.
2.1 On 17.02.2005, the accident in question has taken place at
about 7.30 a.m. to 8.45 a.m. The claimant was travelling in S.T.
Bus bearing Registration No.GJ-18-V-2407 from his Village:
Sargvada to Ahmedabad. That the respondent No.1 - driver was
driving the said bus in rash and negligent manner and in
excessive speed endangering the human life, as a result of
which, the driver lost control over steering and the bus was
dashed with one tree and turned turtle. In the said accident, the
claimant sustained serious injury. Hence, the aforementioned
claim petition being M.A.C.P. No.880 of 2005 came to be filed by
the claimant seeking compensation for disability caused due to
C/FA/3609/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/11/2021
the accident. The same is partly allowed by the Tribunal vide
judgment and award dated 29.03.2008 and awarded
compensation of Rs.78,300/- with interest at the rate of 9% per
annum as against the claim of Rs.2,00,000/-. In fact, the group of
claim petitions came to be decided by common judgment and
award by the Tribunal. The same is not subject matter of the
present appeal. The Tribunal after evaluating the pleadings and
oral aw well as documentary evidence tendered by the parties as
noticed hereinabove awarded total compensation of Rs.78,300/-
under the different heads i.e. Rs.15,000/- towards pain, shock
and suffering, Rs.3,500/- towards medical expenses and
Rs.9,000/- towards attendant charges, special diet and
conveyance, Rs.10,000/- towards actual loss of income and since
considering Rs.2,500/- as monthly income, Rs.40,800/- towards
future loss of income to the claimant, in all Rs.78,300/- with
running interest at the rate of 9% per annum.
3. I have heard Mr.Vilav Bhatia, learned counsel appearing for
the appellant and Mr.Hardik Rawal, learned counsel appearing
for respondent No.2 - Corporation.
4. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the
C/FA/3609/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/11/2021
appellant that the Tribunal has committed a serious error in
awarding abysmally very less compensation without considering
the material evidence available on record and in particular he
would draw the attention of this Court to the injury certificate at
Exhibit 78 issued by the V. S. Hospital, Ahmedabad wherein the
doctor has assessed 25% disability of body as a whole. He has
submitted that the Tribunal has committed serious error while
considering the fact that the claimant was working as a truck
driver and he was earning Rs.4,500/- per month i.e. Rs.4,000/-
salary plus Rs.500/- for other works and considered his income at
Rs.2,500/- per month only. He has also submitted that the
Tribunal has erred in not considering the future income in its true
and perspective spirit. He has prayed to enhance the amount of
compensation under all heads.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 -
Corporation has supported the judgment and award passed by
the Tribunal and in support of his submissions, he has submitted
that the Tribunal has rightly appreciated the income of the
claimant, permanent disablement sustained by the claimant and
compensation awarded under the different heads and, therefore,
there is no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and
C/FA/3609/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/11/2021
award. He has prays for dismissal of the appeal and prays for its
confirmation. He would also submit that the Tribunal has
assigned just and proper reasons which would not call for
interference.
6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and
on perusal of the case-papers, I am of the considered view that
the present appeal requires consideration and the impugned
judgment and award under challenge deserves to be modified to
the aforesaid extent.
7. The aspects relating to the accident, involvement of the
offending vehicle, there is no dispute raised by the otherside and
are not delved upon by me in the present appeal as it could be
repetition of facts.
8. The records on hand would clearly indicate that the
accident had occurred on 17.02.2005, while the claimant was
travelling in S.T. Bus from his Village: Sargvada to Ahmedabad.
The driver of the offending S.T. Bus was driving the said same in
rash and negligent manner, with full speed, without observing
traffic rules and regulations and at about 7.30 a.m to 8.45 a.m.,
after passing Begva Village he has lost the control and dashed
C/FA/3609/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/11/2021
with a tree and turned turtle and due to that the present
appellant sustained serious injury. The charge-sheet came to be
filed against the offending driver of the S.T. Bus. This aspect
though noticed by the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the
facts. Insofar as the future loss of income is concerned, the
multiplier and under other heads, the amount is required to be
redetermined as under:-
Rs.2500/- monthly income 17% disability = Rs.425 per Rs. 71,400/-
month x 12 months = Rs.5100/- per year x 14 multiplier
Actual loss of income Rs.2500/- x 5 months Rs. 12,500/-
Special diet Rs. 9,000/-
Medical expenses Rs. 3,500/-
Pain, shock and suffering Rs. 35,000/-
Total amount Rs.1,31,400/-
Less : Awarded amount Rs. 78,300/-
Rs. 53,100/-
Accordingly, a sum of Rs.53,100/- requires to be enhanced
which is just and reasonable compensation and same is awarded
in substitution to sum of Rs.78,300/- awarded by the Tribunal.
The compensation awarded under other heads being just and
reasonable, the same is not interfered with.
9. For the reasons aforestated, I proceed to pass following
ORDER
C/FA/3609/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/11/2021
(i) The appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The judgment and award dated 29.03.2008 passed by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Rural) at
Mirzapur in M.A.C.P. No.880 of 2005 is modified and in
substitution to what has been awarded by the Tribunal a
sum of Rs.53,100/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per
annum is awarded which shall be from the date of petition
till date of payment or deposit whichever is earlier.
(iii) The apportionment and order for deposit as made by the
Tribunal in paragraph No. 63 of the operative portion of
the order shall hold good for the substituted award. The
insurer is directed to deposit the compensation amount
expeditiously at any rate within an outer limit of four
weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this
order.
Registry is directed to send back the record and
proceedings to the concerned Court, forthwith.
Sd/-
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
V.R. PANCHAL
