Gujarat High Court
Isral Isubbhai Belim vs Garsinhram Sanvantram Nehar on 6 October, 2021
Bench: A.G.Uraizee
C/FA/820/2020 ORDER DATED: 06/10/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 820 of 2020
==========================================================
ISRAL ISUBBHAI BELIM
Versus
GARSINHRAM SANVANTRAM NEHAR
==========================================================
Appearance:
A N KADRI(7990) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
DARSHIT R BRAHMBHATT(8011) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR VC THOMAS(5476) for the Defendant(s) No. 3,6
NOTICE SERVED(4) for the Defendant(s) No. 5
NOTICE UNSERVED(8) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
UNSERVED EXPIRED (N)(9) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.G.URAIZEE
Date : 06/10/2021
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard Mr. Kadri, learned advocate for the appellant
and Mr. V.C. Thomas, learned advocate for the Insurance
Company. Presence of respondent No.2 is not necessary
who is owner of the offending vehicle, for the purpose of
disposal of present appeal, as the question of quantum is
involved in the appeal.
2. The issue involved in the appeal lies in narrow
compass. Therefore, the appeal is taken up for disposal
today with consent of learned advocates appearing for the
contesting parties.
3. The appellant, who is the original claimant has
preferred present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor
C/FA/820/2020 ORDER DATED: 06/10/2021
Vehicles Act, 1988 ("M.V. Act" for short) for enhancement
of compensation awarded to him by Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal (A) Panchmahals at Godhra vide
judgment and awarded dated 27.7.2017 in M.A.C.P.
No.1048 of 1993.
4. Mr. Kadri, learned advocate for the appellant
submits that the tribunal has not considered prospective
income while assessing future loss of income. He submits
that considering the age of the appellant at the time of
accident, the tribunal ought to have considered 40%
prospective income to determine the future loss of
income. He, therefore, submits that the appellant had
suffered very serious injury in the accident and therefore,
compensation awarded under the head of pain shock and
suffering is on a lower side and the tribunal ought to have
awarded Rs. 20,000/- instead of Rs.10,000/- under the
said head. He, therefore, urges that the appeal may be
allowed and the compensation awarded by the tribunal
may be modified.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Thomas, learned advocate
for the insurance company has supported the impugned
judgment and award. He stoutly submits that the tribunal
has assigned cogent and convincing reasons for not
considering prospective income and has not committed
any error in awarded Rs.10,000/- under the head of pain
shock and suffering considering the injury suffered by the
C/FA/820/2020 ORDER DATED: 06/10/2021
appellant. He, therefore, urges that the appeal may be
dismissed.
6. I have considered the submissions made by learned
advocates for the contesting parties. I have also perused
the impugned judgment and award passed by the
Tribunal.
7. It appears from the judgment and award that the
appellant was aged around 21 years at the time of
accident as per his School Leaving Certificate - Exh.37. It
also emerges from the impugned judgment and award
that the appellant has suffered serious injury resulting
into 30% disability.
8. Considering the age of the appellant at the time of
accident and the nature of serious injury received by the
appellant, submission of Mr. Kadri, learned advocate for
the appellant for prospective income and enhancement of
compensation under the head of pain shock and suffering
needs to be accepted.
9. Considering the age of the appellant, the tribunal
ought to have considered 40% prospective rise in the
income and ought to have awarded Rs.20,000/- instead of
Rs.10,000/- under the head of pain shock and suffering. I
am therefore, of the view that the compensation assessed
by the tribunal needs to be reassessed and recalculated
C/FA/820/2020 ORDER DATED: 06/10/2021
as under.
Head Award Tribunal Revised
Rs. Calculation
Income 1250 1250
Prospective Income NIL 40%=1750
Disability 10%=125 10%=175
Dependency 125x12x18 175x12x18
27000 37800 (+10800)
Pan 10000-00 20,000-00
shock/suffering (+10000)
Medical 2000-00 2000-00
Other heads
Actual loss 2500-00 2500-00
Diet 2000-00 2000-00
Attendance
Transportation
Total 43500-00 64300-43500=20,800
Additional Rs.20,800/-
compensation
10. The appellant claimant is, therefore, entitled to Rs.
64,300/- as compensation in place of Rs.43,500/-.
Accordingly the appellant is entitled to Rs.20,800/- as an
additional compensation.
11. Mr. Thomas, learned advocate for the insurance
company submits that there was a delay of around more
than 2 years in preferring appeal to challenge the
impugned judgment and award. He submits that while
condoning the delay, this Court has reserved liberty in
favour of the insurance company to agitate the issue of
C/FA/820/2020 ORDER DATED: 06/10/2021
interest for the period of delay on the amount of
additional compensation. He, therefore, urges that the
interest may not be awarded for the period from
27.10.2017 to 14.2.2020 and he further submits that
interest @ 7.5% may be awarded on the amount of the
additional compensation.
12. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed.
Judgment and award dated 27.7.2017 passed by Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (A) Panchmahals at Godhra in
M.A.C.P. No.1048 of 1993 is hereby modified and the
appellant is entitled to Rs. 64,300/- as compensation in
place of Rs.43,500/-. Accordingly, the appellant is entitled
to Rs.20,800/- as additional compensation with 7.5%
interest from the date of filing of claim petition till
payment except for the period from 27.10.2017 to
14.2.2020 with proportionate cost.
13. The insurance company is directed to deposit the
amount of enhanced compensation in the Tribunal within
six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this
order.
(A.G.URAIZEE, J)
SURESH SOLANKI
