Gujarat High Court
Labhubhai Karamshibhai vs Babubhai Vrajlalbhai Trivedi on 9 September, 2022
Bench: Hemant M. Prachchhak
C/FA/524/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 524 of 2011
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
================================================================
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 ?
================================================================
LABHUBHAI KARAMSHIBHAI
Versus
BABUBHAI VRAJLALBHAI TRIVEDI & 2 other(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MS AMRITA AJMERA(5204) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR DAKSHESH MEHTA(2430) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK
Date : 09/09/2022
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is filed by the appellant - claimant seeking
enhancement of the compensation amount awarded by the
C/FA/524/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2022
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Limbdi (hereinafter
referred to as "the Tribunal") vide impugned judgment and
award dated 23.09.2008 passed in M.A.C.P. No.141 of 2004.
2. Brief facts of the present case are that the accident took
place on 29.10.2003 at 8.00 a.m near Hanuman Temple, Muli-
Dodiya Road. That the applicant was travelling in Maruti Car
bearing registration no.GJ-18-A-8984 and at that time, the said
car was driven in rash and negligent manner, due to which, tyre
of the car was burst and, therefore, the driver lost control over
the vehicle and turned turtle and accident took place. In the said
accident, the appellant sustained injury. Hence, the appellant -
original claimant has filed the aforesaid claim petition before the
Tribunal. The Tribunal, after evaluating the pleadings and
evidence tendered by the parties, partly allowed the claim
petition and awarded a sum of Rs.87,640/-.
3. It came to be held by the Tribunal that said amount was
ordered to be awarded to the deponents. Not being satisfied with
the compensation amount, this appeal has been filed.
C/FA/524/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2022
4. Heard Ms.Ajmera, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and Mr. Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent - Insurance Company. Though served, nobody
appears on behalf of respondents no.1 and 2.
5. Ms.Ajmera, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has
submitted the same facts which are narrated in the memo of
appeal. She has submitted that the Tribunal has committed an
error in considering two different disability certificates issued by
two different doctors. She has submitted that the Tribunal has
committed an error in considering two different disability i.e.
11% and 6% instead of 17% body as a whole. She has submitted
that the Tribunal has determined the income of the claimant at
Rs.1800/- per month despite the fact that the appellant was
earning Rs.4,000/- per month from the agriculture work. She has
submitted that though the age of the appellant is 40 years at the
time of accident, the Tribunal without any reason came to the
conclusion that the appellant is aged 45 years and applied
multiplier of 15 instead of 17. She has submitted that the
C/FA/524/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2022
compensation amount requires to be enhanced and the appeal
requires to be allowed.
6. As against that Mr.Mehta, learned counsel appearing for
respondent - Insurance Company has supported the impugned
judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. He has submitted
that so far as the income of the deceased is concerned, there is
no cogent and proper proof or evidence led by the appellant and
even the multiplier applied by the Tribunal is just and proper
and, therefore, no interference is called for.
7. Having considered the averments made in the appeal,
submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both the
sides and considered the facts of the case and perused the
record and proceedings, it appears that the Tribunal has
committed an error in considering the permanent partial
disability body as a whole, which requires to be modified to the
extent.
8. Considering the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
C/FA/524/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2022
Court in the case of Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation and another reported in (2009) 6 SCC
121 and National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay
Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, I am of the
considered opinion that the appellant is entitled to get additional
amount of compensation considering the income of the claimant
at Rs.3,000/- plus 40% rise and appeal requires to be allowed
and the impugned judgment and award requires to be
substituted by enhancing the amount of compensation and,
therefore, the compensation is enhanced under the following
heads:-
Future loss of income Rs.1,28,520-00
Rs.3000/- x 40% rise = Rs.4200/- (Rs.3000 + Rs.1200) x
17% disability = Rs.715 x 15 multiplier x 12
Medical expenses Rs.39,500-00
Pain, shock and suffering Rs.50,000-00
Loss of amenities Rs.40,000-00
Attendant charges, special diet and transportation Rs.20,000-00
Actual loss of income Rs.9,000-00
Total compensation Rs.2,87,020-00
Less: Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Rs.87,640-00
Additional amount Rs.1,99,380-00
Accordingly a sum of Rs.1,99,380/- as additional
C/FA/524/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2022
compensation requires to be awarded towards future loss of
income, which is just and reasonable compensation and the
same is awarded in addition to Rs.87,640/- awarded by the
Tribunal. However, the appellant is entitled to the enhanced /
additional amount of compensation of Rs.1,99,380/- along with
interest at the rate of 6% from the date of application till
realization of the amount.
10. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part.
The impugned judgment and award passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal is hereby modified and in addition to
what has been awarded by the Tribunal, a sum of Rs.1,99,800/-
as additional amount with interest at the rate of 6% per annum is
awarded which shall be from the date of filing of the claim
petition till its realization. The Insurance Company is directed to
deposit additional amount of compensation with 6% interest as
early as possible within an outer limit of eight weeks from the
date of receipt of certified copy of this order. After deposit of the
additional amount of compensation, the same shall be disbursed
in favour of the claimant through RTGS, after proper verification.
C/FA/524/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2022
The bank account details shall be furnished by the learned
advocate for the claimant to the Nazir Department of the Court
concerned. The appellant is directed to pay deficit court fees, if
any, on the enhanced amount within one month from the date of
receipt of certified copy of this order.
Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned
Tribunal forthwith. Pending civil application shall stand disposed
of accordingly.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
V.R. PANCHAL
