Valjibhai Savjibhai Sonagara vs Daudbhai Vallibhai Minapara
2021 Latest Caselaw 16935 Guj

     C/FA/1209/2020                                     ORDER DATED: 27/10/2021




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                      R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1209 of 2020

==========================================================
                      VALJIBHAI SAVJIBHAI SONAGARA
                                  Versus
                      DAUDBHAI VALLIBHAI MINAPARA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KIRTIDEV R DAVE(3267) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR RAHUL K DAVE(3978) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.G.URAIZEE

                              Date : 27/10/2021

                                 ORAL ORDER

1. Heard Mr. Dave, learned advocate for the appellant.

2. Present appeal is preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act ("M.V. Act" for short) for enhancement of compensation which is awarded by the Tribunal under judgment and award dated 29.11.2019 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Limbdi, District Surendranagar in M.A.C.P. No.12 of 2018.

3. It appears from the impugned judgment that on 13.3.2018 when the appellant was travelling in Eicher Mini Truck bearing registration No. GJ-04-X-5344, the truck turned turtle as the driver was driving it in rash and negligent manner and the appellant suffered bodily injury. The appellant, therefore, instituted M.A.C.P. No.12 of 2018 in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Limbdi,

C/FA/1209/2020 ORDER DATED: 27/10/2021

District Surendranagar against driver, owner and insured of the vehicle. The Tribunal after assessing oral and documentary evidence partly allowed the claim petition and awarded Rs.1,93,300/- with 9% interest per annum and directed the driver and owner to pay compensation jointly and severally and exonerated the insurance company.

4. The claimants are not happy with the quantum of compensation and therefore he has preferred present appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation.

5. Mr. Dave, learned advocate for the appellant vehemently submits that the Tribunal has considered the monthly income of the appellant on very lower side, as the appellant was holding agricultural land in his own name. He submits that to buttress the source of income, the appellant has produced Village Form No. 8A at Exh.27. He further submits that the Tribunal has committed error in assessing the disability as well as the monthly income of the appellant. He also submits that the Tribunal has not considered the prospective income of the appellant. He, therefore, submits that the appeal requires consideration.

6. I have perused the impugned judgment. It emerges from the record that at the time of accident, the appellant was aged around 62 years. It further emerges that the

C/FA/1209/2020 ORDER DATED: 27/10/2021

appellant has produced Village From No. 8A to buttress his say that he was earning around Rs.2,00,000/- per annum by doing agricultural activity. However, the Tribunal has recorded a finding that the appellant has admitted in his cross-examination that he was doing agricultural activity along with his two sons, moreover Exh.27, Village From No.8A revels that there was no cultivation activity on the land. Under the circumstances, the Tribunal had no option but to do some guesswork to assess the monthly income of the appellant.

7. Considering the age of the appellant and the fact that Village Form No.8A did not reveal any agricultural activity on the land belonging to the appellant, the Tribunal has assessed Rs.3,000/- per month as monthly income of the appellant.

8. I am in complete agreement with the findings recorded by the Tribunal, considering the age of the appellant and the fact that no contemporaneous evidence was brought on record to indicate that the appellant was earning his livelihood by doing agricultural activity.

9. So far as disability is concerned, disability of 14% is assessed by the Tribunal on the basis of the consensus between the learned advocate for the appellant and learned advocate for the insurance company. Considering the degree of disability suffered by the appellant, there is

C/FA/1209/2020 ORDER DATED: 27/10/2021

no question of considering the prospective income.

10. In view of the above, I am in complete agreement with the findings recorded by the Tribunal. The appeal is without merit and is hereby dismissed at threshold.

(A.G.URAIZEE, J) SURESH SOLANKI