Gujarat High Court
Jigneshbhai Kantibhai Patel vs Patel Jitendrakumar Ishvarbhai on 14 December, 2022
Bench: A.Y. Kogje
C/FA/2214/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/12/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2214 of 2018
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE Sd/-
================================================================
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 ?
================================================================
JIGNESHBHAI KANTIBHAI PATEL
Versus
PATEL JITENDRAKUMAR ISHVARBHAI & 1 other(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR R.K.MANSURI(3205) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR MAULIK J SHELAT(2500) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE
Date : 14/12/2022
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The claimant is in appeal against the judgment and award
of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aravalli in MACP No.
1903 of 2013 (old MACP No.14 of 2012).
2. The appellant is clamming a compensation to the extent of
)9 lakh under different heads for the accidental injuries received
C/FA/2214/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/12/2022
by the appellant in an accident which took place on 4 th June
2011. The Tribunal has awarded compensation to the tune of
)1,65,418/- by considering the contributory negligence of the
appellant.
3. Learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the
Tribunal has committed an error in treating the contributory
negligence to the extent of 50% by disregarding the evidence on
record including the panchnama at Exhibit-45 which goes to
indicate that the appellant himself was driving the motorcycle on
the correct side of the road and the accident was caused on
account of the other driver of the vehicle driving in a race and
negligent manner and on the wrong side.
4. It is also claimed that an error is committed by the
Tribunal in awarding compensation under the head of pain,
shock and suffering as well as towards the diet on a lower side.
5. Learned advocate Mr.Shelat appearing for the Insurance
Company has drawn attention of this Court to the panchnama
Exhibit-45 as well as the FIR to contend that it was a head-on
collision between the two vehicles and the damage suffered by
the vehicles were on the front side and therefore contributory
negligence of the appellant at 50% was justified.
6. Having considered the rival submissions of the parties and
having perused the documents on record, more particularly,
panchnama Exhibit-47, FIR Exhibit-46 and charge-sheet
C/FA/2214/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/12/2022
Exhibit-48, it would go to indicate that the accident took place
which involved two motorcycles which collided head-on,
however, the panchnama would indicate that the appellant was
on the correct side of the road at the time of the accident and,
therefore, the Tribunal appears to have erred in holding the
appellant negligent to the extent of 50%. The Court deems it fit,
on the basis of the evidence on record, that the negligence of the
appellant is to be treated only to the extent of 25% in place of
50% as held by the Tribunal.
7. The Court also finds that the amount awarded under the
head of pain, shock and suffering is on the lower side on the
facts of the case and, therefore, it is required to be enhanced at
)15,000/-. Similarly, under the head of Special Diet, Attendance
and Transportation, the amount of compensation awarded is
)2,000/-, which is required to be enhanced to )5,000/-. On
these two aspects the++re does not appear to be any opposition
on the part of the Insurance Company. Hence, the award is
required to be modified accordingly.
8. In view of the aforesaid, the award is required to be
modified giving compensation under different heads as under :
)43,200/- Future Loss of Income
)15,000/- Pain, Shock and Suffering
)5,000/- Special Diet, Attendance and Transportation
)1,17,218/- Medical Bills
)1,80,218 Total Compensation
C/FA/2214/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/12/2022
9. Out of the total compensation amount of )1,80,218/- if an
amount towards 25% contributory negligence is deducted, then
the compensation amount would come to )1,35,163/-.
Considering the negligence attributed now to the appellant, the
additional compensation would come to )52,454/- (Total
compensation )1,35,163/- (minus) )82,709/-), which is
required to be paid to appellant.
10. Insofar as the interest is concerned, the Tribunal has
awarded interest at the rate of 9%, however, with the consent of
both the parties, the award of interest is fixed at 7.5%.
11. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit with the
Tribunal a sum of )52,454/- (Rupees Fifty-Two Thousand Four-
Hundred Fifty-Four only) with interest at the rate of 7.5% per
annum from the date of claim petition till its realization, within a
period of four weeks from today. The Tribunal shall disburse the
entire awarded amount lying in the FDR and/or with the
Tribunal, with accrued interest thereon, if any, to the claimant,
by account payee cheque, after proper verification and after
following due procedure. While making the payment, the
Tribunal shall deduct the court fees, if not paid, in the claim
petition, in accordance with rules/law.
12. With the above, the Appeal stands disposed of. Record and
proceedings be sent back to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.
(A.Y. KOGJE, J.)
/MOINUDDIN
