Gujarat High Court
Harshabaa Arjunsinh Jadeja vs Husen Mamad Khalifa on 12 October, 2021
Bench: A.G.Uraizee
C/FA/2750/2021 ORDER DATED: 12/10/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2750 of 2021
==========================================================
HARSHABAA ARJUNSINH JADEJA
Versus
HUSEN MAMAD KHALIFA
==========================================================
Appearance:
VATSAL M PARIKH(9340) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR JITENDRA MALKAN FOR MR VISMAY V MALKAN(9284) for the
Appellant(s) No. 1
for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
MR MAULIK J SHELAT(2500) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.G.URAIZEE
Date : 12/10/2021
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard Mr. Jitendra Malkan, learned advocate for Mr.
Vismay V. Malkan, learned advocate for the appellant and
Mr. Maulik Shelat, learned advocate for the respondent
No.3.
2. The appellant has preferred present appeal for
enhancement of compensation awarded to her under
judgment and award dated 25.10.2019 by the Tribunal in
Motor Accident Claims Petition No.308 of 2015.
3. Mr. Malkan, learned advocate submits that the
appellant, aside from doing household work was looking
after / supervising the agricultural work which was being
done by the husband in the agricultural field owned by
him.
C/FA/2750/2021 ORDER DATED: 12/10/2021
4. He, further elaborates his submission by submitting
that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in case
of Lata Wadhwa & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Ors
(2001) 8 SCC 197, the income of the appellant should
be assessed at Rs.3,000/- per month and further she was
supervising the agriculture activities of her husband and
therefore she has suffered loss of income from
supervisory work. He, therefore, submits that the income
assessed by the Tribunal is on the lower side. He further
submits that the appellant has suffered fracture of spine
L1 and she is still having continuous pain in spinal cord
therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal
under the head of pain shock and suffering is very
meagre. He, therefore, submits that the appeal requires
consideration.
5. So far as monthly income of the appellant is
concerned, it is an undisputed fact that she is housewife.
According to her assertion she was moonshining by
supervising / looking after the agriculture work of her
husband, who is having 1 Hector 35 RA 7 PRA of land.
Except the oral assertion on oath of the appellant, there
is no iota of evidence on record to indicate that the
appellant was doing supervisory work, except the revenue
record of the land. The husband of the appellant has not
stepped into the witness box to buttress the say of the
appellant that she was helping him in agricultural work.
C/FA/2750/2021 ORDER DATED: 12/10/2021
6. The Tribunal has, therefore, done some guesswork
and considering the time gap between the decision of the
Supreme Court in case of Lata Wadhwa (supra) and the
year of the accident and considering the inflation, the
Tribunal has assessed notional monthly income of the
claimant at Rs.4,000/- instead of Rs.3,000/- as assessed by
Supreme Court in case of Lata Wadhwa (supra).
7. I am, therefore of the considered view that the line
of reasoning adopted by the Tribunal, so far as the
monthly income of the appellant is concerned, is just and
reasonable, which does not call for any interference.
8. It appears from the impugned judgment and award
that the appellant had suffered fracture of spine L1 and is
still having continuous pain pain in her spinal cord.
Considering the nature of injury suffered by her in the
accident, the appeal requires consideration, so far as the
compensation under the head of pain shock and suffering
is concerned.
9. Hence, ADMIT for the aforesaid limited purpose.
10. Mr. Shelat, learned advocate waives service of
notice of admission on behalf of the respondent No.3-
insurance company.
(A.G.URAIZEE, J)
SURESH SOLANKI
