Gujarat High Court
Chandrakant Purshotamdas Gajjar vs Ahmedabad Municipal Transport ... on 13 December, 2023
Author: Gita Gopi
Bench: Gita Gopi
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/500/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/12/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 500 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI Sd/-
================================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to No
see 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 ?
================================================================
CHANDRAKANT PURSHOTAMDAS GAJJAR
Versus
AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL TRANSPORT CORPORATION & 1 other(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR PJ MEHTA(467) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR ADIL R MIRZA(2488) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 2
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 13/12/2023
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. By way of this Appeal, the Appellant-claimant has
challenged the judgment and award dated 11.12.2012
passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(Aux.), Ahmedabad in M.A.C.P. No.479 of 2003.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/500/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/12/2023
undefined
2. The facts giving rise to the present Appeal can be put
succinctly as under :-
On 06.04.2000, at about 8.30 a.m., the claimant and
his son (as a pillion rider) were going on their Motor
cycle bearing Registration No.GJ-1-CA-1059, when
they reached near Baripara Chhapra three roads, at
that time, one Ahmedabad Municipal Transport
Service (A.M.T.S.) Bus bearing Registration No.GRU-
8510 driven by the respondent No.2 came in full
speed and in a rash and negligent manner and
dashed the motorcycle driven by the appellant. As a
result, the appellant fell down on the road and
sustained serious injuries on his head, ear and nose.
The front wheel of the A.M.T.S. Bus passed over the
motor cycle. The son of the appellant also suffered
injuries on his face, cheek and right leg. It is alleged
that the driver of the bus, ran away from the place
of accident. The appellant was admitted in the
emergency ward of Shardaben Hospital, but because
of his serious injuries, was shifted to V.S. Hospital on
06.04.2000, as an indoor patient, where treatment
was given for a period of fifteen days. The
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/500/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/12/2023
undefined
appellant could not attend his duty for a period of
one and half years.
3. Heard learned Advocate for the appellant Mr. P.J.
Mehta, who submitted that the appellant is now aged
78 years. The original M.A.C.P. is of the year 2003
for the accident which occurred on 04.06.2000. It is
further submitted that the appellant was examined
and had also examined Dr. Balkishan Navinchandra
Desai at Exhibit 45 and the Doctor of V.S. Hospital
had given details of the head injury sustained in the
vehicular accident. A certificate to that effect was
issued on 07.08.2002 describing all the particulars of
the injuries. It is further submitted that the learned
Tribunal has observed the evidence of the Doctor to
find that the claimant was regularly visiting for
taking treatment and on the basis of overall
evaluation, the permanent disability has been assessed
as 50% for the body as a whole.
4. It is further submitted that the evidence with regard
to physical disability has remained unchallenged and
the evidence of the witnesses has not been
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/500/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/12/2023
undefined
discredited. The learned Tribunal has relied upon
the same to observe that in cross examination,
nothing adverse has come on record affecting the
version of the appellant. The disability of 50% of the
body as a whole has been found from the evidence of
the Doctor.
5. Learned Advocate for the appellant Mr. P.J. Mehta
further submitted that considering the length of
hospitalization, the treatment undertaken and the fact
of 50% disability, the learned Tribunal ought to have
considered a just amount in proportion to the injuries
suffered and the treatment taken in the hospital to
grant an amount to under the head of pain, shock
and suffering. It is further submitted that under the
head of Special Diet, Attendant Charges and
Transportation, the amount granted is on a lower side
and further, it is submitted that though there was no
loss of income to the claimant, as he was in his job
at the Anand Agricultural University, at the time of
the accident, his monthly income was Rs.10,935/-
which has been proved by Salary Statement at Exhibit
57 amount under heads was required to be
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/500/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/12/2023
undefined
appropriately granted. It is further submitted that
the learned Tribunal has granted loss of income for
about 322 days, which has been proved by way of
Exhibit 50 by witness - Mansukhbhai Shankarbhai
Jakasaniya and thus, the loss of income has been
granted @ Rs.1,17,350/- (Rs.365/- x 322 days).
However, the learned Tribunal has not granted any
amount under the head of loss of amenities of life as
the disability would affect the appellant throughout
his life, would also affect his day to day dealings at
his home as also his social status even after his
retirement.
6. Learned Advocate for the appellant in support of his
submissions relied on the judgments of (i) Mohd.
Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain Vs. Regional Manager, U.P.
State Road Transport Corporation, rendered in Civil
Appeal Nos.9070-9071 of 2022 and (ii) The New India
Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Satish Chandra Sharma
& Anr., rendered in Civil Appeal No.1579 of 2022, to
submit that in cases of permanent disablement caused
by a motor accident, the claimant is entitled to future
loss of income, not only on the current income but
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/500/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/12/2023
undefined
also as rise in future prospects; learned Advocate Mr.
P.J. Mehta submitted that just compensation must be
interpreted in such a manner so as to place the
claimant in the same position as he was before the
accident.
7. Countering the above arguments, it is submitted by
learned Advocate for the respondent No.1 - A.M.T.S.,
Mr. Adil R. Mirza submitted that all the facts are
required to be proved by way of cogent evidence.
The claimant could prove the medical bills only
amounting to Rs.16,331.96 which was at Exhibit 41
and the learned Tribunal has granted an amount of
Rs.20,000/- under the head of medical expenses.
8. It is further submitted that the claimant has been
appropriately compensated for the loss of income for
the period he could not attend the service and stated
that no amount under the head of pain, shock and
suffering was required to be granted, inspite of that,
Rs.20,000/- is given. Rs.8,000/- is granted under the
head of Special Diet, Attendant Charges and
Transportation, which according to learned Advocate
Mr. Adil R. Mirza is just and proper.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/500/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/12/2023
undefined
9. Having heard learned Advocates for the respective
parties, perused the records of the case, it is required
to be noted that at the time of accident, the claimant
was aged about 52 years. The claim petition was
moved in the year 2003, 50% permanent disability
has been proved by way of the evidence of the
Doctor and further fact has been proved on record
that for about 322 days, the appellant could not
attend the service because of the vehicular accident.
Taking all the facts into consideration, the claimant is
entitled for the amount under the head of loss of
amenities of life.
10. In the case of Dahyabhai Somchand Parmar Vs.
Ramavtar B. Sharma reported in 2006 (4) GLR 2844,
wherein the calculation of the trial Court adopting
the multiplier of 5 applied in case of injury sustained
by government or semi-government employee whose
employment has continued in the same cadre for
compensation and whose earning has increased was
approved.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/500/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/12/2023
undefined
11. It is also required to be mentioned that such
method of applying the multiplier system in case of
assessing the loss of amenities of life, has been
approved by the Apex Court, which has the reflection
in paras 11 and 13 of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar
reported in 2011 1 SCC 343, which refers as under :-
"11. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal
is the effect of the permanently disability on the
earning capacity of the injured; and after assessing
the loss of earning capacity in terms of a percentage
of the income, it has to be quantified in terms of
money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings (by
applying the standard multiplier method used to
determine loss of dependency). We may however
note that in some cases, on appreciation of evidence
and assessment, the Tribunal may find that
percentage of loss of earning capacity as a result of
the permanent disability, is approximately the same
as the percentage of permanent disability in which
case, of course, the Tribunal will adopt the said
percentage for determination of compensation (see
for example, the decisions of this court in Arvind
Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. -
2010(10) SCALE 298 and Yadava Kumar v. D.M.,
National Insurance Co. Ltd.
13. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent
disability on the actual earning capacity involves
three steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain what
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/500/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/12/2023
undefined
activities the claimant could carry on in spite of the
permanent disability and what he could not do as a
result of the permanent ability (this is also relevant
for awarding compensation under the head of loss
of amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain
his avocation, profession and nature of work before
the accident, as also his age. The third step is to
find out whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled
from earning any kind of livelihood, or (ii) whether
in spite of the permanent disability, the claimant
could still effectively carry on the activities and
functions, which he was earlier carrying on, or (iii)
whether he was prevented or restricted from
discharging his previous activities and functions, but
could carry on some other or lesser scale of
activities and functions so that he continues to earn
or can continue to earn his livelihood."
12. Further, the Tribunal has placed reliance on the
judgment of Division Bench of this Court in case of
Rameshbhai Ramnikbhai Vyas Vs. Ismail Ibrahim and
Suleman Ibrahim reported in (2012) 2 GCD 1388,
wherein the Division Bench has referred the case of
Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar (supra) and followed the
ratio adopting the multiplier of 5.
13. The monthly income of Rs.10,935/- has been
proven by way of Exhibit 57 at the time of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/500/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/12/2023
undefined
accident. On the basis of 50% permanent disability,
a loss of Rs.5,467.50 is to be considered and the
annual amount is Rs.65,610/- (Rs.5,467.50 x 12).
Since the claimant was still in service, applying the
multiplier of 5, the amount that could be assessed
under the head of loss of amenities of life would be
Rs.3,28,050/- (Rs.65,610 x 5). The claimant's health
was affected because of the accident and according to
him, he suffered severe injuries on the head and also
had suffered loss of eye sight and they were blood
clots in his eye. It is submitted by learned Advocate
for the appellant that the appellant's mental health is
not good at present. The physical disability in
support of the evidence is on record, where the
appellant could not attend service for 322 days and
under the head of pain, shock and suffering, the
learned Tribunal has granted an amount of
Rs.20,000/- which is on the lower side. This Court
considers that under the above head, Rs.50,000/-
ought to be granted considering the physical disability
as well as the treatment undergone by the appellant.
14. In the same manner, taking into consideration
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/500/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/12/2023
undefined
the duration of the treatment, the amount under the
head of Special Diet, Attendant's Charges and
transportation, an amount of Rs.20,000/- is
considered.
15. Thus, the computation can be made as under :-
Details Amount (Rs.)
Actual loss of income 1,17,350/-
Pain, shock and suffering 50,000/-
Medical expenses 20,000/-
Special Diet, Attendant's charges 20,000/-
and Transportation
Loss of amenities of life 3,28,050/-
TOTAL 5,35,400/-
16. The learned Tribunal has awarded an amount of
Rs.1,65,350/- with rate of interest @ 7.5% per
annum, which the respondent/s liable to deposit, with
the enhanced amount as Rs.3,70,000/- (Rs.5,35,400/-
minus Rs.1,65,350/-). In the result, the present
respondent/s are directed to deposit the amount
within a period of EIGHT (8) WEEKS from the date
of receipt of writ of the order of this Court. It is
further directed that the claimant/s would be entitled
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/500/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/12/2023
undefined
to receive the enhanced compensation @ 7.5% per
annum from the date of the application and the total
enhanced/compensation amount be paid to the
claimant, after carrying out the appropriate procedure
for verification of his identity.
17. In view of the above, the Appeal is allowed and
the judgment and award dated 11.12.2012 passed by
the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.),
Ahmedabad in M.A.C.P. No.479 of 2003 stands
modified to the above extent. Record and
proceedings, if any, be sent back to the concerned
Court / Tribunal forthwith.
Sd/-
(GITA GOPI, J)
CAROLINE
