Gujarat High Court
New India Assurance Co Ltd, ... vs Premsinh Manoharilal Meena on 19 October, 2023
Bench: Ilesh J. Vora
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/179/2011 ORDER DATED: 19/10/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 179 of 2011
==========================================================
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD, REGISTERED OFFICE AT 87,
MAHATMA
Versus
PREMSINH MANOHARILAL MEENA & 2 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SUNIL B PARIKH(582) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
for the Defendant(s) No. 2,3
MR DR BHATT(165) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
Date : 19/10/2023
ORAL ORDER
1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is
at the instance of New India Assurance Company Limited, and is
directed against the judgment and award dated 22.09.2010 passed
by the claim Tribunal at Valsad in MACP No. 1951 of 2002,
whereby, disposing the application, the Tribunal has awarded
compensation Rs.4,46,280/- with interest.
2. The original claimant, Premsinh Meena, at the age of 33, met with
an accident on 10.07.2001, when the bike upon which he was
riding as a pillion dashed with the Tata Sumo Car, as a result of
which, he sustained multiple fracture injuries, resulting into
permanent partial disablement to the extent of 22%. The claimant
had filed aforesaid claim petition joining the owner, driver and
insurance company of the Sumo Car, claimed an amount of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/179/2011 ORDER DATED: 19/10/2023
undefined
compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. The Tribunal vide its judgment and
award dated 22.09.2010, assessed 100% negligence on the driver
of the Sumo Car and awarded Rs.3,41,280/- under future loss. The
Tribunal in addition to the said amount, also awarded Rs.75,000/-
towards loss of leave, Rs.20,000/- towards Pain, Shock and
Suffering, Rs.10,000/- towards diet etc., and therefore, in all,
Rs.4,46,280/- together with interest and cost awarded to the
claimant.
3. The appellate Insurance Company being aggrieved and dissatisfied
with the findings on the issue of negligence, which was solely
determined against the driver of the Sumo car and the amount
awarded under the future loss is before this Court.
4. Mr. Sunil Parikh, learned counsel appearing for and on behalf of
the appellant Insurance Company has submitted that the Tribunal
overlooked the facts that the claimant was permanent employee of
the Central Government and as such, there was no any deduction in
his salary nor any loss of promotional avenue and therefore, the
amount under the future loss could not have been awarded by the
Tribunal.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel Mr. D.R. Bhatt, appearing for
the claimant has submitted that, the treatment of the injured was
continued for about one year and was operated for the grievous
injuries as per the medical records and therefore, the Tribunal has
rightly considered the nature of injuries and its impact on the
capacity to do work. He further submitted that, the Tribunal with a
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/179/2011 ORDER DATED: 19/10/2023
undefined
conservative view applied the multiplier of 8 which shows that the
Tribunal has awarded equitable and just amount, which does not
require reduction in the compensation.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and
upon perusal of the material placed on record, the issue falls for
consideration is whether the Tribunal fell into error while
determining the issue of negligence as well as awarding the amount
under the future loss?
7. On perusal of the impugned award, this Court is of considered
view that, the learned Tribunal has assigned cogent reasons for
arriving at the conclusion that there was a fault on the part of the
driver of the Sumo Car and therefore, there is no ground to
interfere with the findings recorded on the issue of negligence.
8. So far as amount awarded under the future loss is concerned, this
Court finds merits in the submission made by the learned counsel
Mr. Parikh. The claimant being a permanent employee of the
railway department, despite having suffered a disablement, there
was no any reduction in his salary, rank or loss of any promotional
avenue of the post. Thus, as observed by the Apex Court in the
case of Rajkumar Vs. Ajay Kumar, (2011 (1) SCC 343), that, no
compensation under the head of future earning should be awarded
if the claimant continues in the government service and he is not in
his position in the service. It is however, observed that, the injured
may be awarded compensation under the head of loss of amenities
as a consequence of disability suffered by him.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/179/2011 ORDER DATED: 19/10/2023
undefined
9. In the result, the amount awarded under the head of loss of future
earning i.e. Rs.3,41,280, is required to be deducted and the award
is reduced to that extent. However, facts remain that the claimant
was admitted as a patient in the hospital for a long because of his
treatment. In such circumstances, the additional amount under the
head of Pain, Shock and Suffering is awarded to the extent of
Rs.30,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded under the head of loss of
amenities etc.
10. The appeal is, thus, allowed to the aforesaid extent. The claimant is
entitled to for the amount of compensation of Rs.2.35,000/-
(Rs.4,46,280-3,41,280= 1,05,000+1,30,000 = 2,35,000/-) after
reduction of the aforesaid amount and to that extent, the judgment
and award is modified. The Tribunal is directed to adjust the
amount already withdrawn by the claimant and refund the balance
amount with accrued interest in favour of the appellant - Insurance
Company.
(ILESH J. VORA,J)
P.S. JOSHI
