Gujarat High Court
Dhirajlal Ratilal Dave vs Prakashbhai Bhikhubhai Nakum on 11 February, 2022
Bench: Niral R. Mehta
C/FA/1125/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1125 of 2006
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1126 of 2006
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA
================================================================
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 ?
================================================================
DHIRAJLAL RATILAL DAVE
Versus
PRAKASHBHAI BHIKHUBHAI NAKUM & 4 other(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR NIRAV C THAKKAR(2206) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
DELETED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
JAY P PATEL(7800) for the Defendant(s) No. 4
MR PALAK H THAKKAR(3455) for the Defendant(s) No. 5
MR SUNIL B PARIKH(582) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
RULE UNSERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 2
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA
Date : 11/02/2022
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Since both these Appeals arise out of the common
judgment and award, the same are being disposed of by this
C/FA/1125/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2022
common judgment, by treating the First Appeal No.1125 of
2006 as a lead matter.
2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and
award dated 9.1.2002 passed in MAC Petition No.118 of 1990
by the learned MAC Tribunal (Main), Surendranagar, the
original claimant has approached this Court by way of present
Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 (for
short 'the Act') for enhancement of compensation. The claim
of the original claimant was for the compensation of Rs.2 lakh,
however, the learned Tribunal has awarded the compensation
under the various heads as under :
Particulars Amount
Income Assessed Rs.1000/-
Permanent Partial Disablement 7.5 as a body whole
Multiplier adopted 7 years
So, Rs.75/- x 12 x 7 Rs.6,300/-
3. It is the case of the claimant that on 20.8.1994, the
claimant along with other co-passengers were travelling in
Ambassador car (taxi) bearing Registration No.GJ-1-T-3234
from Rajkot to Ahmedabad. While they reached near Chotila,
the Truck bearing registration No.GTH 7181 was coming in a
rash and negligent manner with excessive speed from the
C/FA/1125/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2022
opposite direction. As a result of which, the Ambassador car
and the Truck collided with each other. All the passengers
including the claimant were shifted to the Government
Hospital, Chotila and after some primary treatment, they all
were shifted to the hospital of Dr.D.D.Shah, Orthopedic
Surgeon at Rajkot and there the claimant took treatment as
an indoor patient for a period of 5 to 6 days. In the said
vehicular accident, the claimant received serious bodily
injuries in the form of fracture in right shoulder and also
sustained fracture of his ribs.
3.1 Thus, the claimant had approached the Tribunal by way
of claim petition under Section 166 of the MV Act seeking,
inter-alia, compensation to the extent of Rs.2 lakh for the
injuries received in the vehicular accident.
3.2 Upon service of notice, the respective parties have
entered their appearance through the lawyers and filed the
written statement contesting the claim petition. However, the
original opponent Nos.1 and 2 have chosen not to file any
written statement. So far as the original opponent No.3 -
Insurance Co. of the Truck is concerned, it has filed its written
statement below Exh.25. The original opponent No.4 i.e.
C/FA/1125/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2022
owner of the Ambassador car and original opponent No.5 -
Insurance Co. of the Ambassador car, both have filed their
written statement at Exh.10 and Exh.32 respectively.
3.3 The Tribunal having considered the contentions and the
evidence led by the parties, has held the driver of the Truck
bearing Registration No.GTH 7181 as 80% negligent and the
driver of the Ambassador car as 20% negligent for the
accident in question. The Tribunal thereafter proceeded to
award the compensation by considering the income at
Rs.1000/- per month and also considered 7.5% permanent
partial disability as a body as a whole and also adopted
multiplier of 7 which comes to Rs.6300/- (Rs.75 x 12 x 7)
under the head of future economic loss. The Tribunal has also
awarded Rs.3000/- under the head of actual economic loss
considering that for 3 months, the original claimant did not
work. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.7500/- towards pain,
shock and suffering, Rs.3000/- towards special diet and
Rs.3000/- towards attendant charges, Rs.3000/- towards
transportation charges and Rs.4250/- towards medical
expenses, over and above the aforesaid. Thus, the total sum of
Rs.33050/- came to be awarded by the Tribunal to the
claimant.
C/FA/1125/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2022
3.4 Being, therefore, aggrieved by the aforesaid, the
claimant has approached this Court by way of present Appeal,
seeking enhancement of compensation.
4. Heard Mr.Nirav C. Thakkar, learned counsel for the
appellant, Mr.Palak Thakkar, learned counsel and Mr.Sunil B.
Parikh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.5
and 3 respectively, Mr.Jay P. Patel, learned counsel for the
respondent No.4. The respondent No.1 appears to have been
deleted vide order dated 15.4.2019 and respondent No.2 was
unserved. Since the necessary contesting parties are before
this Court, this Court thought fit to decide the same on merits.
5. Mr.Nirav C. Thakkar, learned counsel, submitted that
the Tribunal has not awarded just compensation to the
appellant. Mr.Thakkar submitted that the Tribunal has
awarded meagre amount under the head of medical expenses
and that the amount awarded under the head of future
economic loss and actual economic loss is also on a lower
side. In view of aforesaid, Mr.Thakkar urged this Court to
enhance the amount of compensation suitably, in the interest
of justice.
C/FA/1125/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2022
6. Per contra, Mr.Palak Thakkar, learned counsel and
Mr.Sunil B. Parikh, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent Nos.5 and 3 respectively, have vehemently
opposed the Appeals by contending that the Tribunal has
granted just and fair compensation looking to the injury in
question to the present appellant and, therefore, does not
require any interference by this Court.
7. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties and having gone through the impugned
award as well as the R & P received from the Tribunal
concerned, it appears that the appellant is in the Government
service and discharging the duties as Mamlatdar at the
relevant point of time. It appears from the record as well as
from the pleadings that looking to the injury, the earning
capacity of the appellant is not affected and thereby, no future
loss is caused and the original claimant has been paid the
salary including the increments regularly. In view of the
aforesaid, in my considered opinion, I am in complete
agreement with the finding recorded by the Tribunal so as to
arrive at just and fair compensation, more particularly looking
to the nature of injuries and its future effect.
C/FA/1125/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/02/2022
8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the
impugned award deserves no modification. Thus, the present
Appeals bereft of any merit, are hereby dismissed accordingly.
R & P be sent back to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.
(NIRAL R. MEHTA,J)
V.J. SATWARA
