Gujarat High Court
Dhirajlal @ Dhirubhai Manilal Shah vs Aawardan Verisab Gadhvi Charan on 2 August, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2952/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2952 of 2009
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
DHIRAJLAL @ DHIRUBHAI MANILAL SHAH
Versus
AAWARDAN VERISAB GADHVI CHARAN & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MTM HAKIM(1190) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
for the Defendant(s) No. 2
MS HINA DESAI(1023) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 02/08/2024
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal is filed by the appellant-claimant
under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, being aggrieved
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2952/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2024
undefined
by and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated
28.11.2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(Aux.), Kheda at Nadiad in Motor Accident Claim Petition
No.1490 of 1991, by which, the Tribunal has partly allowed
the claim petition by awarding Rs.2,90,470/- with 9% p.a.
interest to be paid to claimant.
2. The facts of the present appeal are as under :
2.1 The claimant filed the claim petition stating that on
4.6.91, the claimant was going on his scooter no.GRM3602
with his son as pillion rider and was going from Vadodara
towards Nadiad and at the place of accident, the opponent
no.1 drove the motor truck no.GQG.7071 in a rash and
negligent manner and dashed the scooter from the front side
due to which the claimant fell down and sustained serious
injuries and also the son sitting as pillion rider suffered
serious injuries. Therefore, the claimant filed the claim
petition for compensation.
2.2 The notices were served to the opponents. All the
opponents filed the written statement to the claim petition.
The issues were framed by the Tribunal. Oral as well as
documentary evidence were led before the Tribunal. After
hearing the submissions made by the rival parties, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2952/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2024
undefined
Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition(s) and awarded
compensation as noted above.
2.3 However, being aggrieved with the amount of
compensation awarded, the claimant has filed the present
appeal before this Court.
3. Learned advocate for the claimant-appellant has
submitted that the compensation awarded by the learned
Tribunal is only Rs.2,90,470/- as against the claim of
Rs.10,00,000/-. He submitted that the learned Tribunal has
considered the income on a very low side, disability on the
low side, and also awarded very less amount under the head
of prospective income, medical expenses, special diet and
transportation, pain, shock and suffering etc. Relying on the
decision in the case of Naginbhai Laxmidas Patel V/s
Ashwinkumar Prabhudas Patel reported in 2016(0) AIJEL-
HC234452, learned advocate for the appellant submitted that
the facts of the said case are similar to this case and
therefore this Court should interfere with the impugned
judgment and enhance the amount of compensation under all
the heads by considering the evidence.
4. Per contra, learned advocate for the respondent-
insurance company has submitted that the learned Tribunal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2952/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2024
undefined
has considered the oral and documentary evidence produced
before it and awarded the compensation considering the
income of the appellant, his age, prospective income, nature
of injury, disability suffered by him etc. and therefore there
is no need of interference by this Court and therefore prayed
to dismiss this appeal.
5. I have considered the submissions made by the
respective parties. I have gone through the material produced
on record including the impugned judgment and award passed
by the Tribunal. I have also considered the pleadings of the
parties before the Tribunal.
6. The claimant has mainly filed this appeal on the
ground of quantum. The learned Tribunal has considered the
fact that the applicant was aged about 51 years at the time
of accident, he was a salaried person and he was getting the
salary of Rs.3776/- and at the time of retirement, he was
drawing salary of Rs.14,000/- i.e. he got increments as per
the rules and there was no decrease in income of the
appellant. Further, the medical expert was examined and he
stated that there is permanent partial disability of 54%
including 30% of the vision disablement and practically there
is disablement of 42% and that the appellant went for
determination of the disability after 11 years of the accident
and therefore, the doctor opined that he could not say
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2952/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2024
undefined
anything about the difference at the time of the accident and
at the time of examination and opined the disability of 54%,
however, it is not coming on the record whether the same is
arrived at by examining with latest machinery or not.
Therefore, the learned Tribunal considered the said relevant
deposition and the documents and came to the conclusion of
27% disability of body as a whole and calculated the future
prospective income.
7. Considering the nature of injuries, period of
hospitalization and the treatment taken by the appellant, the
learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000/- under the head of
pain, shock and suffering. As regards the medical expenses,
the appellant has deposed that the total expenses incurred by
him were 1,37,340/- out of which 10% is paid by the
company as he was enrolled in it and therefore deducting the
said amount, the remaining 90% of the medical expenses
incurred by the claimant of Rs.1,23,606/- was ordered to be
awarded to the claimant. In the same manner, the learned
Tribunal has awarded considerable amount under the other
heads of transportation, special diet etc.
8. It may be noted here that though there is no
actual loss of income of the appellant due to the accident as
he has used his personal leave for the treatment, the learned
Tribunal has considered that if the accident would not have
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2952/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/08/2024
undefined
happened, his leave would have been saved and therefore
considering the said analogy, has awarded the actual loss of
income for the period he was on leave due to the treatment.
9. In nutshell, the learned Tribunal has discussed
each and every aspect of the matter for awarding
compensation to the appellant-claimant and has arrived at
the conclusion to award the amount of Rs.2,90,470/- with 9%
interest which is just and proper and not required to be
interfered with. This appeal, therefore, deserves to be
dismissed.
10. In view of above, the following order is passed.
10.1 The present appeal is dismissed with no order as
to costs.
10.2 The amount lying with the Tribunal and/or in the
FDR, pursuant to the order of this Court if any, shall be
disbursed to the claimant, along with accrued interest thereon
if any, by account payee cheque, after proper verification and
after following due procedure, within a period of six weeks
from today.
10.3 Record and proceedings be sent back to the
concerned Tribunal, forthwith.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J)
SRILATHA
