Gujarat High Court
Dineshbhai Tapubhai Dangart vs Manoj @ Manubhai Valabhai ... on 18 September, 2023
Bench: Ilesh J. Vora
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/519/2010 ORDER DATED: 18/09/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 519 of 2010
==========================================================
DINESHBHAI TAPUBHAI DANGART
Versus
MANOJ @ MANUBHAI VALABHAI KHATARIA & 1 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS MAMTA R VYAS(994) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR GC MAZMUDAR(1193) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
MR HG MAZMUDAR(1194) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
NOTICE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
Date : 18/09/2023
ORAL ORDER
1. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation
awarded by the tribunal at Rajkot (MACP No.1659 of 2000), the
original injured-claimant has preferred the present appeal
seeking enhancement of compensation.
2. The appellant Dinesh Tapubhai at the age of 23 years,
sustained a spinal injury in a road accident which resulted into
permanent partial disablement to the extent of 65% as he
suffered paraplegia. On the day of accident dated 03.08.2000,
he being a pillion of the scooter, which was skidded on the
road on account of rash driving of the respondent no.1. After
the accident, he was taken to private hospital of Dr. Hemang
Vasavda and admitted there for about 11 days and according
to medical evidence, till date of admission, he was having
quadriparesis sensation below the lower limb, as a result, his
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/519/2010 ORDER DATED: 18/09/2023
undefined
life become miserable and entire life he could not
independently work either for his livelihood or domestic work
without support of others. He was earning Rs.2500/- per month
and on account of the said injuries, his earning capacity has
been reduced to 100%. In these background facts under the
various heads of compensation, the claimant had claimed
Rs.10,00,000/- against the owner and insurance company of
the scooter. The Rajkot Tribunal vide its judgment and award
dated 30.06.2008 has awarded Rs.2,69,000/- towards the total
amount of compensation.
3. Being aggrieved with the said judgment and award, the
appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 173
of the Act.
4. This Court has heard learned counsel Ms. Mamta Vyas
and Mr. H.G. Majmudar for the respective parties.
5. Ms. Mamta Vyas, learned counsel for the appellant
assailing the judgment and award has contended that, the
tribunal has ignored the serious injuries of spinal cord which
has resulted into 100% reduction in the capacity to earn. The
tribunal failed to award the amount under the head of non-
pecuniary damages despite the various guidelines issued by
the Apex Court. Thus, therefore, she submitted that, the
amount awarded is on lower side and therefore, case is made
out for interference by this Court.
6. Mr. Majmudar, learned counsel appearing for the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/519/2010 ORDER DATED: 18/09/2023
undefined
insurance company, has submitted that, before the tribunal no
evidence adduced on the aspect of income and therefore, the
tribunal after considering the oral as well as documentary
evidence, awarded a reasonable amount of compensation
which does not require any modification by this Court.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties,
the issue arise for determination of this Court is whether
amount of compensation as determined by the tribunal needs
any enhancement?
8. In the decision of the Apex Court in case of Pappu Deo
Yadav (AIR 2020 SC 4424) after referring the various
judgments, it was observed that, the claimant is entitled for
the benefit of future prospective income in a case of serious
injuries resulting in permanent disablement. The Apex Court
after referring its earlier judgment in case of Rajkumar (2011 1
SCC 343), held that, in a routine personal injury cases, the
compensation will be awarded toward the pecuniary damages,
whereas in serious cases of injuries, the compensation will be
granted under the head of non-pecuniary damages like loss of
amenities, loss of expectation of life etc.
9. In light of settled position of law and considering the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of
considered view that the facts of injury and its resultant impact
on the earning capacity are not in dispute. The tribunal has not
awarded amount under the general damages and also failed to
consider the future rise in the income. In such circumstances,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/519/2010 ORDER DATED: 18/09/2023
undefined
case is made out for modification of the award of
compensation. The total compensation payable to the claimant
is computed below:
1. The future economic loss: Rs.3,53,808/-(monthly income
Rs.1800+Rs.720=Rs.2520 and considering 65% disablement, the
monthly loss comes to Rs.1638 and applying the multiplier of 18,
the total loss comes to Rs.3,53,808/-)
2. No need to interfere with the amount of medicine etc.
3. Attendant loss: Rs.10,000/-
4. Actual loss awarded by the tribunal is reasonable and therefore,
no need to enhance the said amount.
5. Special diet & transportation: Rs.10,000/-
6. Pain, shock & suffering: Rs.1,00,000/-
7. Loss of amenities &
Loss of expectation of life: Rs.1,00,000/-
Total Rs.5,73,808/-
(the awarded amount was Rs.2,69,000/-)
(the enhanced amount of compensation is Rs.3,04,808/-)
10. In view of the above, the present appeal is allowed in
part. The claimant is entitled for the enhanced amount of
compensation of Rs.3,04,808/-. The enhanced amount shall
carry the interest @ 6% from the date of application till its
realization. The insurance company shall deposit the enhanced
amount within a period of two months. Decree be drawn
accordingly. The tribunal shall disburse the entire enhanced
amount without making further investment in FDR.
(ILESH J. VORA,J)
TAUSIF SAIYED
