Gujarat High Court
Jigarkumar Veljibhai Patel vs Maheshbhai Mangalbhai Khant on 25 August, 2023
Bench: Bhargav D. Karia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3683/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3683 of 2010
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
==========================================================
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 ?
==========================================================
JIGARKUMAR VELJIBHAI PATEL
Versus
MAHESHBHAI MANGALBHAI KHANT & 2 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR. ALKESH N SHAH(3749) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
Date : 25/08/2023
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The appellant-claimant has filed the present First Appeal
under Section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ("the Act"
for short) challenging the judgement and award dated 30.7.2010
passed in M.A.C.P. No. 1229 of 2006 by the learned Motor Accident
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3683/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2023
undefined
Claim Tribunal, Kheda at Nadiad, (for short "the Tribunal")
whereby, the Tribunal partially allowed the claim petition by
awarding compensation of Rs. 1,85,517/- with interest at the rate of
9% per annum. The appellant -original claimant has sought for
enhancement of the awarded compensation and therefore, without
going into the facts with regard to the occurrence of the accident as
well as any other issue only the aspect of quantum of award is
considered in this order.
2. The factual matrix of the case is that on 22.5.2006 at about
1:00 O'clock in the night, both the claimants were going on
motorcycle bearing registration No. GJ-7-AK-5231 to watch a night
cricket match at Kapadwanj College ground at Dakor-Kapadwanj
Road on the western side near Krishna Telecom. The motorcycle
was driven by Jigar I.Kansara (claimant of M.A.C.P. No. 140 of
2007) and the claimant Jigarkumar Veljibhai Patel (claimant of
MACP No. 1229 of 2006) was a pillion rider. It was the case of the
claimant that the motorcyle was driven in a moderate speed and on
the correct side of the road. When, they were passing through the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3683/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2023
undefined
place of accident, at the relevant time, a Tata Sumo, which was
driven by Opponent No.1, owned by opponent No.2 and insured
with opponent No.3 came in wrong side in rash and negligent
manner endangering to human life and collided with the front part of
the motorcycle and therefore, both the driver and pillion rider of the
motorcycle (present claimant) sustained injuries. Therefore, the
appellant claimant filed claim petition claiming Rs.3,00,000/
towards the compensation from the respondents.
3. Mr. Hiren Modi, learned advocate appellant-original claimant
has submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in
considering only Rs.2,0000/- towards the monthly income instead
of Rs.4,000/- claimed by the appellant. It was submitted that the
minimum wages prevailing at the time of occurrence of the accident
in the year 2006 was Rs. 2500/- per month.
3.1 Mr. Modi, learned advocate for the appellant has submitted
that the Tribunal has also awarded inadequate amount of
compensation towards the special diet and actual loss of income for
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3683/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2023
undefined
three months.
3.2 Learned advocate Mr.Modi further submitted that the Tribunal
ought to have considered the multiplier of 18 as per the decision of
the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of National
Insurance Company Limited versus Pranay Shethi reported in
(2017) 16 SCC 680.
4. On the other-hand Mr. Alkesh Shah, learned advocate for the
respondent No.3-Insurance Company has submitted that the
Tribunal has passed a just and proper award after considering the
monthly income of Rs.2000/- in absence of any evidence on record
to prove the income of Rs.4,000/- per month claimed by the
appellant.
4.1 It was submitted by learned advocate Mr. Shah, that
considering the 13% disability of the injured claimant for the body
as whole, Tribunal has calculated the compensation of Rs.49,920/-
after applying the multiplier of "16" as per schedule -II of the Act.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3683/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2023
undefined
4.2 It was submitted that the tribunal has awarded Rs.30,000/-
towards pain, shock and suffering, Rs.6,000/- towards special diet,
attendant and transportation, and further Rs.6,000/- towards actual
loss of income for 3 months and also passed an award for
reimbursement of the medical expenses of Rs.93,597/- and
accordingly, total amount of compensation of Rs.1,85,517/- is
awarded.
5. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties and having considered the submissions made by
both the sides, it is not in dispute that the monthly wages prevalent
in the year 2006 was Rs.2500/- and therefore, the Tribunal ought to
have considered the same for the compensation. Considering the
13% disability of the injured claimant for the body as a whole, the
monthly loss of the appellant comes to Rs.325/- (Rs.2500/- x 13%)
and accordingly yearly loss of the injured claimant would be Rs.
325 x 12 = Rs.3900. Considering the School Leaving Certificate of
the claimant, the claimant appears to be 20 years old at the time of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3683/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2023
undefined
accident. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of
Pranay Shethy (Supra), proper multiplier would be "18" and
accordingly, the appellant-original claimant would be entitled to
Rs.70,200/- (Rs.3900/- x 18) towards future economic loss.
6. With regard to the compensation under head special diet and
actual loss of income for 3 months is concerned, it would be proper
to award Rs.15,000/- towards special diet, attendant and
transportation and Rs. 10,000/- for actual loss of income for 4
months. Hence, the just and proper compensation would be worked
out as under:-
Heads of compensation Amount (Rs.)
1 Future Economic Loss 70,200/-
2. Pain, Shock and suffering 30,000/-
3. Special diet, attendant and 15,000/-
transportation
4. Actual loss of income for 4 months 10,000/-
5. Medicine and medical charges 93,597/-
Total compensation 2,18,797/-
Awarded Compensation 1,85,517/-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3683/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/08/2023
undefined
7. Appeal is therefore, partly allowed. Impugned Judgment and
Award of the Tribunal is modified to aforesaid extent. The Tribunal
has already awarded Rs.1,85,517/- towards the compensation.
Therefore, the appellant-claimant would be entitled to enhanced
compensation of Rs.33,280/- (Rs.2,18,797/- - Rs. 1,85,517/-) by
way of just and fair compensation. Respondent No.3 -The Insurance
Company shall deposit before the Tribunal the aforesaid amount
along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of
the application till its realization and proportionate cost, within eight
weeks from the receipt of a copy of judgment of this Court. Rest of
the order of the impugned Judgement and Award remains unaltered.
8. Appeal is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
R&P may be transmitted back to the concerned Claims
Tribunal.
(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J)
BEENA SHAH
