Gangaben Raijibhai Chauhan vs Kesarsinh Bharatsinh Darbar
2023 Latest Caselaw 7182 Guj

                                                                                      NEUTRAL CITATION




       C/FA/354/2009                                 ORDER DATED: 29/09/2023

                                                                                      undefined




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                       R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 354 of 2009

==========================================================
                     GANGABEN RAIJIBHAI CHAUHAN
                               Versus
                KESARSINH BHARATSINH DARBAR & 2 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR BHARAT JANI(352) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
for the Defendant(s) No. 2
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
UNSERVED EXPIRED (R) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================

     CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA

                              Date : 29/09/2023

                               ORAL ORDER

1. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the claim Tribunal at Anand, the original injured claimant has preferred the present Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, for enhancement of the amount of compensation.

2. On 04.02.1996, the appellant Gangaben aged about 42 years old, met with an accident, when, the motorbike upon which she was riding as a pillion dashed with the opposite Jeep. In the alleged accident, she sustained multiple fracture injuries over the lower limbs and was operated 4 to 5 times by the doctor concerned. She suffered permanent disablement to the extent of 80% , as she was unable

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/354/2009 ORDER DATED: 29/09/2023

undefined

to walk or stand on her own as before. In these background facts, the appellant had filed a claim petition (7192 of 2006) before the Tribunal at Anand. The Tribunal vide its judgment and award dated 29.12.2006 after considering the Rs.1000/- monthly income and considering 100% disablement, awarded Rs.1,80,000/- towards future loss, and also awarded Rs.40,000/-, Rs.20,000/-, Rs.5000/- Rs.5,000/- and Rs.7200/- under the different heads like pain, shock suffering, loss of amenities, special diet, attendant loss and transportation.

3. Being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation, the appellant injured has preferred present Appeal seeking enhancement in the compensation.

4. This Court has heard learned counsel Mr. Bharat Jani and Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati, learned counsel for the respective parties.

5. Mr. Bharat Jani, learned counsel for the appellant, assailing the judgment and award, has submitted that the judgment and award are contrary to law, evidence on record and principles of just compensation. He submitted that, considering the 100% disablement, the Tribunal ought to have considered the future prospective income. He further

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/354/2009 ORDER DATED: 29/09/2023

undefined

submitted that, the amount under the head of pain, shock and suffering and loss of amenities is inadequate and little bit on lesser side and therefore, the compensation deserves to be modified.

6. On the other hand, Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati, counsel appearing for the Insurance Company has submitted that, the accident is of 1996 and therefore, the income of Rs.1000/- having properly considered by the Tribunal while awarding the amount of future economic loss. He further submitted that, the learned Tribunal has awarded reasonable amount under the various heads which does not require modification.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, and upon perusal of the material on record, the issue arise for the consideration is, whether the amount of compensation as determined by the Tribunal needs any enhancement?

8. On the facts of the present case, the involvement of the vehicle, the factum of accident, the issue of negligence determined against the opposite vehicle and injuries sustained by the appellant, are not dispute.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/354/2009 ORDER DATED: 29/09/2023

undefined

9. It is the contention that, in a serious injuries, the Tribunal could have determined the prospective income which has not been considered in the present case. This Court finds merits in the contention. The Tribunal has considered Rs.12,000/- yearly income, which is on lower side. The Tribunal failed to appreciate the future prospects of the income. In such circumstances, the amount under the head of future economic loss requires modification. The amount payable to the claimant under the said head is computed as under:

      Future Economic loss:   3,52,800/-      (Monthly
                         income      Rs.1500+40%(600)
                         =2100X100%disablement
                         X12X14)

10. The next contention is that, under the various heads, the Tribunal failed to award appropriate and reasonable amount. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.40,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering and Rs.20,000/- towards loss of amenities life and enjoyment of life. The amount awarded under two heads seem to be on lower side and therefore, considering the 100% disablement, I considered and deem it proper to award Rs.1,00,000/-. The amount awarded under the other heads does not require any revision or modification.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/354/2009 ORDER DATED: 29/09/2023

undefined

11. For the reasons recorded, the appeal is allowed in part. The appellant is entitled to get the total enhanced amount of compensation Rs.2,12,200/- (Rs.4,85,000-2,72,000). The enhanced amount will carry the rate of interest at the rate of 6% from the date of claim petition. The Insurance Company shall deposit the amount of compensation with interest within 2 months from the receipt of this judgment and award. The claim Tribunal shall disburse the entire amount without making further investment in the FDRs. Decree be drawn accordingly.

(ILESH J. VORA,J) P.S. JOSHI