Gujarat High Court
Alimamad Osman Rayma(Ravani) vs Nurmamad Kadarali Saiyad on 15 December, 2022
Bench: Ashokkumar C. Joshi
C/FA/375/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/12/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 375 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ASHOKKUMAR C. JOSHI
======================================================
Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see
1 NO
the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? YES
Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the
3 NO
judgment ?
Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as
4 to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any NO
order made thereunder ?
======================================================
ALIMAMAD OSMAN RAYMA(RAVANI)
Versus
NURMAMAD KADARALI SAIYAD
======================================================
Appearance:
MR. HEMAL SHAH(6960) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR RATHIN P RAVAL(5013) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
NOTICE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
======================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ASHOKKUMAR C. JOSHI
Date : 15/12/2022
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
C/FA/375/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/12/2022
(MV Act) filed at the instance of the appellant - original claimant against
the judgment and award dated 28.09.2018 passed by the learned Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Bhuj - Kachchh (Tribunal) in Motor
Accident Claim Petition No. 447 of 2008 (claim petition), which was
preferred under Section 166 of the MV Act, whereby, against a claim valued
at Rs.6 lakh for the injuries sustained in an accident that had occurred on
09.05.2008, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,52,400/- with interest at
the rate of 9% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization,
holding liable the opponents therein to pay the compensation to the
appellant - original claimant. Hence, grieved claimant has filed this appeal
on the point of quantum.
2. Since, the facts of the accidents are not in dispute, the same are not
detailed here.
3. Though served, the respondent No. 1 has put in no appearance and
accordingly, the Court proceeded with the final hearing of the matter.
Heard, learned advocate Mr. Hemal Shah for the appellant and learned
advocate Mr. Rathin Raval for the respondent No. 2 - insurance company.
3.1 The gist of the arguments of the learned advocate for the appellant is
C/FA/375/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/12/2022
that the appellant - claimant was aged 35 years at the time of incident in
question and a skilled labourer, doing block printing work and was earning
Rs.4,500/- per month and the Tribunal ought to have taken into
consideration such amount towards income of the appellant while
computing the compensation, however, the Tribunal has erred in not
considering the said amount as income of the claimant and has further erred
in considering Rs.3,000/- per month as the income of the appellant -
claimant. Further, it is submitted that the Tribunal has also erred in
awarding actual loss of income for two months only and in fact, it was
required to be considered for six months. Further, it is submitted that under
the heads of Pain, Shock and Suffering, Special Diet, Attendant Charges and
Transportation Charges also, the Tribunal has awarded meagre amounts.
Accordingly, it is urged that this Court may allow this appeal considering
the said aspects of the matter and thereby, enhance the award suitably.
4. As against this, the learned advocate for the respondent No. 2 -
insurance company, while heavily opposing this appeal and supporting the
impugned judgment and award, submitted that the impugned judgment and
award being just and proper, no interference is required at the hands of this
Court. It is submitted that the Tribunal, considering the fact that the incident
had occurred in the year 2008 and the claimant was doing the labour work,
C/FA/375/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/12/2022
has rightly considered the income of the claimant - appellant at Rs.3,000/-
per month. Further, it is submitted that the amount awarded under different
heads are also rightly awarded by the Tribunal and accordingly, he
requested that this appeal being bereft of any merits, deserves to be
dismissed.
5. Regard being had to the submissions made and considering the
averments made in the appeal as well as a perusal of the record reveal that
the appellant - claimant was a skilled labourer and was doing block printing
work at the relevant point of time and thereby, was earning Rs.4,500/- per
month. It has also come on record that the appellant - claimant was having
a computer system also. Accordingly, there was no reason for the Tribunal
for not considering the said amount as income of the appellant - claimant.
Accordingly, when the appellant - claimant was a skilled labourer and was
doing block printing work, which requires special skills, his income is
required to be considered as suggested and accordingly, in the considered
opinion of the Court, the Tribunal has erred in considering the income of the
petitioner - claimant. Further, the amounts awarded under different heads
are also required to be enhanced suitably as being trivial some. Therefore,
this appeal, is required to be allowed to that extent and the impugned
judgment and award is required to be modified accordingly.
C/FA/375/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/12/2022
6. In the aforesaid backdrop, this appeal succeeds and is allowed
accordingly. The impugned judgment and award is modified to the
aforesaid extent and it is held that the appellant - claimant shall be entitled
for the following towards compensation:
Head Award of Tribunal Modified Amt. (Rs.)
(Rs.)
Future loss of income 86,400/- 1,29,600/-
Pain, Shock & Suffering 5,000/- 25,000/-
Special Diet, Attendant, 5,000/- 15,000/-
Transportation
Medical Expenses 50,000/- 50,000/-
Actual loss of income 6,000/- 27,000/-
(3000 x 2) (4500 x 6)
Total 1,52,400/- 2,46,600/-
Different Amt. 94,200/-
6.1 The difference amount shall be deposited within a period of 08 (eight)
weeks.
6.2 The appellant - claimant shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 6%
per annum on such enhanced amount of compensation, from the date of
petition till realization.
6.3 The rest of the impugned judgment and award is not disturbed.
C/FA/375/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/12/2022
6.4 R&P, if received, be sent back forthwith.
[ A. C. Joshi, J. ]
hiren
