Dineshbhai Prabhudas Soni vs Kantilal Bhanvarlal Marvadi ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 6582 Guj

                                                                                             NEUTRAL CITATION




     C/FA/1630/2008                                          ORDER DATED: 08/09/2023

                                                                                             undefined




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                      R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1630 of 2008

==========================================================
                DINESHBHAI PRABHUDAS SONI
                            Versus
 KANTILAL BHANVARLAL MARVADI (DELETED AS PER ORDER DATED
                    21/12/2022) & 2 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PUNIT B JUNEJA(3972) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
DELETED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
MASUMI V NANAVATY(9321) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
SERVED BY AFFIX. (R) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA

                                 Date : 08/09/2023

                                  ORAL ORDER

1. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the original injured claimant has preferred present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. The appellant - Dinesh Soni, sustained vehicular accidental injury on 03.07.2000, allegedly caused by offending truck which had given a dash to the scooter of the appellant. He sustained injuries over his head and left leg and was sustained for about month in V.S. Hospital at Ahmedabad and on account of said injuries, which resulted into permanent partial disablement. The appellant, at relevant time was by profession was doing work of Goldsmith and his average monthly income was

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/1630/2008 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2023

undefined

Rs.3,500/-. In these background facts, he had filed a claim petition before the Ahmedabad Tribunal. The learned tribunal (MACP No.653/2000), vide its judgment and award dated 23.04.2007 by partly allowing the petition, awarded Rs.1,25,000/- under the various heads. The appellant, being dissatisfied with the quantum of amount, has preferred the present appeal on the ground that, the learned tribunal did not have consider the prospective income while determining the amount under future economy loss and though the expenses towards medicines spent Rs.1,25,000/-, the tribunal has considered only Rs.15,000/- under medical expenses.

3. This Court has heard learned counsel Mr. Punit Juneja and Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati for the respective parties.

4. Mr. Juneja, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that, the award passed is against the facts and evidence on record and principles of just compensation laid down by the Apex Court in its various judgments and therefore, case is made out for enhancement of compensation.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati, learned counsel supported the findings recorded by the tribunal and contended that, the tribunal while awarding the amount under various heads, assigned sufficient reasons which does not require any interference.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the material placed on record, the issue

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/1630/2008 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2023

undefined

arise for consideration of this Court is whether the amount so awarded needs any enhancement or not?

7. It is the contention of the appellant that, the tribunal did not have consider the profession of the appellant and material evidence in the form of income tax returns which is evident of the fact that, the appellant was earning Rs.3,500/- per month and despite of this, the tribunal by considering the income of Rs.3,000/- per month without adding any prospective amount, has determined the future economic loss which requires modification of the amount. He further submitted that, the bills of treatment to the tune of Rs.1,72,000/- were being submitted before the tribunal and same was not relied on the reasons that, the appellant could have taken treatment at Ahmedabad.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the findings recorded by the tribunal, this Court is of the view that, while determining the monthly amount under the head of future economic loss, the tribunal did not consider the prospective income which is against the concept of just compensation. Thus, therefore, considering the year of accident and the avocation, the monthly income of Rs.3,000/- does not require any modification, however, prospective income as per the principle laid down by the Constitutional Bench in case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. reported in 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC) shall be taken into consideration and to that extent, the amount is

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/1630/2008 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2023

undefined

modified. The following amount is payable to the appellant under the head of future economic loss:

Rs.4200 (Rs.3000+Rs.1200) X 15% disablement= monthly loss Rs.630 yearly Rs.7560 X 15 = 1,13,400/-. The enhanced amount under this head would come to Rs.32,400/-

9. The learned tribunal despite production of actual medical expenses bills, awarded meager amount of Rs.15,000/- and therefore, the amount under the head of medical expenses needs to be reviewed and accordingly, the enhanced amount payable under the head of medical expenses is Rs.1,57,000/-.

10. Except the above modification, the compensation awarded by the Claim Tribunal under other heads remain unaltered.

11. Consequently, the present appeal is partly allowed. The appellant is entitled to the enhanced amount of Rs.1,89,400/-. The enhanced amount shall carry the interest @ 6%. The tribunal shall disburse the entire amount to the claimant. The decree be drawn accordingly.

(ILESH J. VORA,J) TAUSIF SAIYED