Gujarat High Court
Yasinmiya Allarakhamiya Shaikh vs Laxmansinh Dhanabhai Chauhan on 14 December, 2022
Bench: A.S. Supehia
C/FA/1019/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/12/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1019 of 2016
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA Sd/-
================================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ? NO
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
of the judgment ? NO
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution NO
of India or any order made thereunder ?
================================================================
YASINMIYA ALLARAKHAMIYA SHAIKH
Versus
LAXMANSINH DHANABHAI CHAUHAN & 2 other(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR ADNAN A KHAN FOR MR VA MANSURI(2880) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR PARESH M DARJI(3700) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,3
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
Date : 14/12/2022
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. In the present appeal, the appellant has assailed the judgment and
order dated 30.09.2015 passed in MACP No.1732 of 2008, wherein and
whereby the claimant has been awarded total compensation of
Rs.83,780/-.
2. Learned advocate Mr.Khan appearing for the appellant has
submitted that the appellant is entitled to an enhanced amount on the
basis of future income, which has been assessed at Rs.2,700/- per month.
C/FA/1019/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/12/2022
He has submitted that instead the income should be assessed at Rs.2,900/-
as per the Minimum Wages Act from 01.04.2008 to 30.09.2008. He has
further submitted that the pain, shock and suffering are also required to be
enhanced from Rs.7,500/- to Rs.25,000/-. He has further submitted that
the liability of the appellant-claimant with regard to the negligence to the
extent of 10% is required to be altered since the opponent nos.1 and 2 had
dashed their vehicles from the wrong side.
3. Per contra, learned advocate Mr.Darji appearing for the respondent
no.2 has submitted that the impugned judgment and award does not
require any interference. So far as the pain, shock and suffering is
concerned, it is submitted that the claimant was hospitalized for four days
and he has suffered a fracture in his foot and hence, the same is
appropriate. He has further submitted that so far as the future income is
assessed, the same is appropriately fixed. So far as the negligence part is
concerned, it is submitted that the evidence reflects that the claimant was
also 10% negligent.
4. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective
parties. The documentary evidence produced on record are also assessed
by this Court.
5. So far as the fixation of income of Rs.2,700/- is concerned, there
was no evidence on record that the claimant was in fact earning
Rs.3,000/- as claimed by him. In absence of any evidence, it is tried that
the wages prescribed under the Minimum Wages Act are required to be
considered.
C/FA/1019/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/12/2022
6. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant has submitted that at
the relevant time, the minimum wages prevailing for skilled A worker
was Rs.2,900/-. The same is not disputed by the other side. Hence,
instead of assessing the income of the appellant, who was a driver of a
private vehicle of Rs.2,700/-, the same is altered, assessed and fixed at
Rs.2,900/-as per the minimum wages prescribed in the State of Gujarat.
7. This Court has perused the medical certificate below Exh.25,
which says that there is a deformity present on the right leg and right heel
of the appellant and there is not abnormal movement and hence, the
compensation with regard to shock, pain and suffering is enhanced from
Rs.7,500 to Rs.15,000/-. As regards the negligence part is concerned, this
Court has assessed panchnama at Exh.23, the same also does not reveal
that the appellant was also not negligent to the extent of 10%. A
statement of the appellant is also perused. After perusing the evidence,
this Court is not inclined to disturb the negligence part, which is assessed
at 10% towards the negligence of the appellant. Hence, the present appeal
is partly allowed. Accordingly, the total compensation is enhanced to
Rs.10,804/- over and above, which is awarded by the Tribunal. The same
shall accordingly be deposited along with interest at the rate of 6% per
annum from the date of the application before the concerned Tribunal
within a period of eight weeks and the Tribunal shall disburse the same to
the appellant after due verification.
8. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned trial court.
Sd/-
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
ABHISHEK/1
