Bahadurbhai Bhanabhai Patel vs Navinbhai Bhikhabhai Vasava
2022 Latest Caselaw 5355 Guj

      C/FA/3210/2013                               JUDGMENT DATED: 22/06/2022




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                       R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3210 of 2013
                                    With
                       R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2962 of 2012

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT

==========================================================

1     Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
      to see the judgment ?

2     To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

3     Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
      of the judgment ?

4     Whether this case involves a substantial question
      of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
      of India or any order made thereunder ?

==========================================================
                       BAHADURBHAI BHANABHAI PATEL
                                   Versus
                   NAVINBHAI BHIKHABHAI VASAVA & 2 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR AMIT N CHAUDHARY(5599) for the Appellant - Original Claimant
MR DAKSHESH MEHTA(2430) for the Defendant(s) No. 3 - Insurance Co.
NONE for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2 (Driver and Owner of the Truck)
==========================================================

    CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT

                               Date : 22/06/2022

                              ORAL JUDGMENT

1.1 First Appeal No.3210 of 2013, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is preferred by the appellant - original claimant, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 05.05.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main),

C/FA/3210/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/06/2022

Bharuch in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.101 of 2007, by which the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.11,03,629/- with 9% per annum interest to the claimant, holding Opponents i.e. driver, owner and insurance company of the truck liable, jointly and severally.

1.2 First Appeal No.2962 of 2012 is also preferred by the Insurance Company challenging the same judgment and award passed by the Tribunal before this Court.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:

2.1 On 08.05.2006 at about 11:00 a.m., when the claimant was going on motorcycle bearing registration No.GJ-16-S-7951 along with his relative Jyotiben Ishwarbhai with moderate speed and on correct side of the road, at that time, opponent No.1 - Driver of the Truck bearing registration No.GJ-16-V-4591 came in full speed and in rash and negligent manner. Since there were so many bumbers near the Toll Naka, the claimant has slowed down his motorcycle. However, the Truck did not and dashed with the motorcycle from the back side. As a result, the pillion rider Jyotiben was thrown away and the front portion of the truck was dashed to the claimant and the claimant was thrown away on the road. The truck also got turn-turtle. Immediately, the claimant was shifted to the hospital. Therefore, the claim petition is filed by the claimant to get the compensation of Rs.20 lakhs with interest and cost.

2.2 Notices were served to the opponents. Opponents No.3 - insurance company has filed its written statement at Exh.17 and denied the claim petition so also negligent on the part of the truck driver.

C/FA/3210/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/06/2022

2.3 The Tribunal has framed the issues at Exh.18. The oral as well as documentary evidence were led by the rival parties before the Tribunal, which are mentioned in para 8 of the impugned award. After considering the various documentary as well as oral evidence and submissions made at the bar, the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition by awarding compensation as noted above.

2.4 Hence, the present appeals by the claimant as well as insurance company before this Court.

3. Learned advocate Mr. Amit Chaudhari for the appellant - original claimant has submitted that the Tribunal has committed error in considering the income of the claimant. He has mainly contended that looking to the age of the claimant, the Tribunal has not properly considered the multiplier, which should be calculated more considering the catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court. He has submitted that the claimant was going on motorcycle and the truck was dashed from back side of the motorcycle, therefore, he has submitted that the negligence should be 100% of the truck driver. He has submitted that the compensation be enhanced by allowing the appeal and the appeal of the insurance company may be dismissed.

4. Per contra, Mr. Dakshesh Mehta, learned advocate for the insurance company has submitted that, the Tribunal has committed gross error by awarding much compensation. He has mainly contended that in the present case, no prospective income should be calculated as the claimant has got new assignment and has not received any loss in the income. He has submitted that the Tribunal has rightly considered the compensation other heads i.e. pain, shock and suffering, transportation charges, special diet, etc. He has submitted that the appeal of the insurance company may be allowed

C/FA/3210/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/06/2022

and the appeal of the claimant may be dismissed.

5. It is noteworthy to mention that the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which gives paramount importance to the concept of 'just and fair' compensation. It is a beneficial legislation which has been framed with the object of providing relief to the victims or their families. Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act deals with the concept of 'just compensation' which ought to be determined on the foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability. Although such determination can never be arithmetically exact or perfect, an endeavor should be made by the Court to award just and fair compensation irrespective of the amount claimed by the claimants.

6.1 I have considered the submissions made by the rival parties. I have perused the record and proceedings of the Tribunal. I have gone through the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.

6.2 With regard to the contention of the claimant regarding multiplier is concerned, it is noted that at the time of accident, the age of the claimant was 47 years and 11 months as per record. He received serious bodily injuries due to the accident. It is noted that the complaint is given by one Rohitbhai Ambalal Vasava, who was a Conductor of the Truck. He has clearly stated that the truck was in excessive speed at the time of accident and dashed with the motorcycle from the back side. Looking to these peculiar facts and circumstances as well as negligence on the part of the truck driver and the position in the job, the multiplier should be awarded more by the Tribunal.

6.3     The Tribunal has rightly considered the interest upon the






       C/FA/3210/2013                            JUDGMENT DATED: 22/06/2022

awarded amount considering the scenario present at the relevant point of time. Therefore, no interference in the interest amount is made by this Court, as it is just and proper.

6.4 Both the learned advocates have not raised much grievance qua the compensation towards other heads. Therefore, the same need not be evaluated any further. If I consider the submission of the learned advocate for the appellant - original claimant that the multiplier should be awarded more, is proper, the compensation would be more and if I consider the submission of the learned advocate for the insurance company that the prospective income should not be awarded by the Tribunal, is proper, the compensation would be less. Therefore, to maintain the balance and fairness of justice, the Tribunal has, more or less, awarded proper and just compensation to the claimant. This Court, therefore, does warrant any interference in the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. Both these appeals therefore are required to be dismissed.

7. For the reasons recorded above, the following order is passed.

7.1 First Appeal No.3210 of 2013 filed by the claimant is dismissed, with no order as to costs.

7.2 First Appeal No.2962 of 2012 filed by the insurance company is dismissed, with no order as to costs.

7.3 The Tribunal is directed to disburse the entire awarded amount, which is lying in the FDR and/or with the Tribunal, along with accrued interest thereon if any, to the claimant, by account payee cheque, after proper verification and after following due procedure.

       C/FA/3210/2013                      JUDGMENT DATED: 22/06/2022




7.4     Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned
Tribunal, forthwith.


                                            (SANDEEP N. BHATT,J)
M.H. DAVE