Gujarat High Court
Bharatbhai Bhudiyabhai Damor vs Narendrasinh Motisinh Parmar on 5 July, 2022
Bench: Gita Gopi
C/FA/3917/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/07/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3917 of 2021
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI Sd/-
================================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see No
the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the No
judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law No
as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any
order made thereunder ?
================================================================
BHARATBHAI BHUDIYABHAI DAMOR
Versus
NARENDRASINH MOTISINH PARMAR
================================================================
Appearance:
NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
for the Defendant(s) No. 1
DECEASED LITIGANT for the Defendant(s) No. 2
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 05/07/2022
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. By way of this Appeal, the Appellant - original claimant
has challenged the judgment and award dated 27.03.2018
passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(Main), Dahod in M.A.C.P. No.467 of 2008 seeking
enhancement of the compensation awarded.
C/FA/3917/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/07/2022
2. Learned Advocate for the appellant Mr. Nishit A. Bhalodi
submits that the accident occurred on 08.03.2008 and the
injured was a mason. Necessary documents have been
produced on record to show the functional disability and
the other side had no objection if the permanent
disability is taken as 15% of the body as whole. It is
submitted that the learned Tribunal had erred in placing
reliance on the minimum wages for industrial labourers
approved by the Government, rather it should have
considered that the appellant was a skilled person and
thus ought to have considered the income on a higher
side. It is further submitted that because of the injury,
the claimant could not work for more than three months
and that fact was not considered by the Tribunal and
hence, the above Appeal has been preferred.
3. Countering the above arguments, learned Advocate Mr.
Vibhuti Nanavati submitted that the learned Tribunal has
rightly placed reliance on the minimum wages for
industrial labourers and has appreciated the evidence on
record in its right perspective and thus, urged to reject
the Appeal.
4. Heard learned Advocates for the parties and perused the
record of the case. The facts of the case suggest that on
08.03.2008, the claimant alongwith Rajubhai Kashiyabhai
C/FA/3917/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/07/2022
and others were going walking to Chelawada Babadev for
Darshan and when they were passing on the side of the
road at about 9.00 hours, at the place of accident, a
Tractor bearing Registration No.GJ-17-4735 came from
Village Ranjitnagar. The driver of the said Tractor was
driving the same in a rash and negligent manner and the
driver lost control over the tractor which came on the
wrong side and dashed with the appellant. The appellant
sustained injuries including fracture. As per the case of
the claimant, he remained as an indoor patient for a long
period and that he incurred expenses and he lost his
income during the period when he was hospitalized and
when he was under treatment. To substantiate his
claim, the claimant had submitted Medical Certificate at
Exhibits 25 and 26, Medical Bills at Exhibit 27 and
Disability Certificate at Exhibit 33. As per the claimant,
he had sustained fracture of pelvis with pettla and
rupture of urethara, injury on left leg and blunt injuries
on all over the body. The claimant was taken to 'Maa'
Hospital, where he remained as an indoor patient, an
operation was performed and he stated on oath that he
could not walk for long period and that he could not
recover the strength for working and therefore, he
suffered economic loss.
5. It is also submitted by learned Advocate for the appellant
that the Doctor had assessed the disability at 36%
C/FA/3917/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/07/2022
considering the injury but since both the parties had
agreed for 15% disability as a whole, learned Advocate
Mr. Nishit A. Bhalodi submits that he would not want to
reopen and agitate the same and hence, submits that 15%
disability of the body as a whole be considered.
6. Considering the submissions and since the claimant was a
mason and keeping in view the date of accident, it would
be just, reasonable and even equitable to consider the
income of the claimant as Rs.3,000/- per month and
considering the functional disability as 15% in light of
monthly income assessed as Rs.3,000/- per month his loss
of future income of earning capacity would be considered
as Rs.5,400/- per annum. Hence, the loss of income /
earning capacity would be Rs.91,800/-, i.e. Rs.3000/- x
15% x 12 x 17. Considering the injuries sustained and
operation carried out and further, the time period of
treatment incurred, pain, shock and suffering amount is
required to be granted accordingly. Hence, from the
amount so granted to Rs.10,000/- per month, it would be
just to consider this amount as Rs.20,000/- under the
head of pain, shock and suffering. Further, there would
be loss of income for long period. However, three months
could be considered taking into consideration the time
and the amount of injuries by the claimant under the
head of loss of income Rs.9,000/- is required to be
granted. Considering the time period and the treatment
C/FA/3917/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/07/2022
that the claimant had undergone towards transportation,
attendants and diets, it will be just to enhance the
amount from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.10,000/-.
7. Learned Advocate for the respondent - Insurance
Company Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati submits that the rate of
interest granted is 9% which would be very excessive and
would not be consistent with the prevalent rate of
interest and further would put a burden and heavy cost
on the public money and therefore, the same needs to be
modified. Rate at which the interest is to be awarded
would normally depend upon the bank rate prevailing at
the relevant time. Learned Advocate Mr. Vibhuti
Nanavati has not placed on record any Circular /
Resolution / Policy of Reserve Bank of India. However,
considering the submission and taking judicial note of
prevailing rate of interest on bank deposit, the interest
rate is required be considered at 7.5% per annum only on
the enhanced amount which would be calculated from
the date of filing of the application till the date of actual
indemnification of the award. The order of 9% interest
on the Tribunal awarded compensation money needs no
modification.
Thus, the compensation under heads would be as
under :-
C/FA/3917/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/07/2022
For Future loss of income : Rs. 91,800/-
For Pain, shock and suffering : Rs. 20,000/-
For Transportation, Attendants
and Diets : Rs. 10,000/-
For Actual loss of income : Rs. 9,000/-
For Medical treatment expenses : Rs. 74,313/-
Total compensation amount : Rs.2,05,113/-
8. The claimants are entitled to the total compensation of
Rs.2,05,113/-. The amount of Rs.1,45,646/- granted by
Tribunal would be paid with interest @ 9% per annum,
the amount enhanced would come to Rs.59,467/- (Rupees
Fifty Nine Thousand Four Hundred Sixty Seven Only)
which the claimants be paid @ 7.5% per annum from the
date of the claim petition.
9. Thus, the First Appeal is partly allowed. The judgment
and award dated 27.03.2018 passed by the learned Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Dahod in M.A.C.P.
No.467 of 2008 stands modified to the above extent.
Sd/-
(GITA GOPI, J)
CAROLINE
