Gujarat High Court
Manishbhai Chotubhai Contractor vs Ashok Dahyabhai Solanki on 4 September, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4818/2008 ORDER DATED: 04/09/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4818 of 2008
==========================================================
MANISHBHAI CHOTUBHAI CONTRACTOR
Versus
ASHOK DAHYABHAI SOLANKI & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MANAN A SHAH(5412) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR TANMAY B KARIA(6833) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
RULE UNSERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 04/09/2024
ORAL ORDER
1. The present First Appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988, is preferred by the appellant - original claimant, being
aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated
30.04.2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.),
Fast Track Court No.6, Surat, in Motor Accident Claim Petition
No.264 of 1997, by which the Tribunal has awarded compensation of
Rs.1,03,140/- with 7.5% per annum interest to the claimant, holding
Opponents liable, jointly and severally.
2. Brief facts of the case are as under:
2.1 On 05.06.1995 at around 2:00 pm the injured was going to
meet his elder sister who lives at adajan on motorcycle. While he was
driving his motorcycle a S.T. Bus came from behind him in full speed
and hit his motorcycle and he fell down. After he fell, the respondent
no. 1 driving the bus of the ownership of the respondent no. 2 drove
over the right hand of the claimant. The claimant was injured in on
his right hand; his right palm was crushed, his finger were crushed
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4818/2008 ORDER DATED: 04/09/2024
undefined
and the veins of the rights palm were stretched. The thumb had
stopped working completely and his baby finger had fracture in it.
The claimant's right hand is permanently damaged in the said
accident. The claimant was of the age of 21 years at the time of
accident and was doing a job in Saagar Electronics.
2.2 After considering the documentary as well as oral evidence and
submissions made at the bar, the Tribunal has partly allowed the
claim petition by awarding compensation as noted above.
2.3 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and award passed by the Tribunal, the present appeal is preferred by
the claimant for enhancement.
3. Learned advocate for the appellant - claimant has submitted
that the Tribunal has committed an error in not properly calculating
the amount of compensation. He has submitted that amount awarded
is on lower side as the Tribunal has not properly considered the
various aspects; like income of the injured, injuries received,
disability, prospective income, future as well as actual loss of income
and attendant as well as transportation charges, etc. He has
submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error by not
considering the compensation properly under the head of pain, shock
and suffering, looking to the injuries sustained by the claimant,
whereby, his right palm was crushed, his finger were crushed and
the veins of the rights palm were stretched, the thumb had stopped
working completely and his baby finger had fracture in it. Also, the
claimant's right hand is permanently damaged in the said accident as
well as plastic surgery was done and was not able to work for three
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4818/2008 ORDER DATED: 04/09/2024
undefined
years, keeping in mind, the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of : (i) National Insurance Company Limited versus Pranay
Shethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and (ii) Magma General
Insurance Company Limited versus Nanu Ram and others reported in
(2018) 18 SCC 130. He has further submitted that looking to the
nature of injuries and the circumstances of the facts of the case,
tribunal ought to have awarded higher amount under the head of
Special diet, transportation and attendant charges, as the injured
was undergoing treatment for a period of six months and the
claimant was an indoor patient for several days.
3.1 He has further submitted that the income ought to have been
considered at Rs.1,500/- after taking into consideration the age and
work profile of the claimant, as the claimant was doing job in Saagar
Electronics and at the time of the accident the claimant was aged 21
years and therefore, appropriate enhancement be made by modifying
the award impugned. He has submitted that the appeal may be
allowed.
4. Per contra, learned advocate for respondent No.2 has
submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by the
Tribunal is just and proper. The Tribunal has rightly considered the
compensation towards pain, shock and suffering and the amount of
compensation has rightly been awarded under various heads. He has
submitted that the Tribunal has assessed the disability certificates
and awarded just and proper compensation to the claimant. He has
submitted that no interference is required in the impugned award.
He has submitted that this appeal may be dismissed.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4818/2008 ORDER DATED: 04/09/2024
undefined
5. It is noteworthy to mention that the provisions of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 which gives paramount importance to the concept
of 'just and fair' compensation. It is a beneficial legislation which has
been framed with the object of providing relief to the victims or their
families. Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act deals with the
concept of 'just compensation' which ought to be determined on the
foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability. Although
such determination can never be arithmetically exact or perfect, an
endeavor should be made by the Court to award just and fair
compensation irrespective of the amount claimed by the claimants.
6.1 I have considered the submissions made by the rival parties. I
have gone through the impugned judgment and award passed by the
Tribunal.
6.2 It transpires that the injured was doing job in Saagar
Electronics and therefore, considering the income of the claimant
and the income prevalent in the year of accident, Rs.1500/- p.m. is
required to considered for the amount of compensation. Accordingly,
considering the income, the actual loss of income would come to
Rs.1,500/- X 6 (months) = Rs.9,000/- and the same is required to be
considered for awarding the amount of compensation.
6.3 Furthermore, considering the various decisions of the Hon'ble
Apex Court and taking into account the age of the injured at the time
of accident, i.e. 21 years, prospective income should be considered
40%. Therefore, it would come to Rs.1500/- + Rs.600/- = Rs.2100/-
p.m. Looking to the injuries, it appears that the claimant has received
serious injuries on face in the accident and due to the accident, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4818/2008 ORDER DATED: 04/09/2024
undefined
claimant got disability and the disability certificate was produced at
Exh.24, therefore, considering the same, 30% disability of the body
as a whole is to be considered. Furthermore, looking to the various
decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and taking into account the age
of the injured at the time of accident, i.e. 21 years, multiplier of 18 is
required to be awarded. Thus, amount towards future loss of income
would come to Rs.2100/- X 30% X 18 (multiplier) X 12 (annual) =
Rs.1,36,080/-.
6.4 Moreover, under the head of pain, shock and suffering,
Rs.30,000/- would be proper to be awarded as compensation to the
claimant considering injuries sustained by the claimant, whereby,
his right palm was crushed, his finger were crushed and the veins of
the rights palm were stretched, the thumb had stopped working
completely and his baby finger had fracture in it and also, the
claimant's right hand is permanently damaged in the said accident as
well as plastic surgery was done and was not able to work for three
years. Furthermore, it is submitted that the Tribunal has committed
error in not properly considering the amount towards Special diet,
transportation and attendant charges, which should be Rs.25,000/-,
considering the treatment undergone by the claimant and the
seriousness of the injury suffered by the claimant.
6.5 Except above, the Tribunal has rightly awarded compensation
under the other heads, which need not be reconsidered and
enhanced.
6.6 Thus, the appellant - claimant is entitled to get the following
final amount as compensation :
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4818/2008 ORDER DATED: 04/09/2024
undefined
Particulars Amount (Rs.)
Pain, shock and suffering 30,000/-
Future loss of income 1,36,080/-
Actual loss of income 9,000/-
Special diet, attendant and Transportation 25,000/-
charges
Medical Expenses 23,900/-
Total... 2,23,980/-
Total entitled amount 2,01,582/-
(-10% contributory negligence)
Amount awarded by the tribunal... 1,03,140/-
Enhanced amount... 98,442/-
6.7 Thus, the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding total
compensation of Rs.1,03,140/- under various heads. The appellant -
original claimant is entitled to the additional amount of compensation
of Rs.98,442/- over and above the amount of Rs.1,03,140/- as
awarded by the Tribunal. Rest of the direction(s) if any, shall remain
same.
7. For the reasons recorded above, the following order is passed.
7.1 The present appeal is partly allowed.
7.2 The judgment dated 30.04.2007 passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Fast Track Court No.6, Surat, in Motor
Accident Claim Petition No.264 of 1997 shall stand modified to the
aforesaid extent by enhancing the amount of compensation as above.
7.3 The respondent No.2 - Gujarat State Road Transport
Corporation is directed to pay the enhanced amount of Rs.98,442/-
with the interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim
petition till realization before the concerned Tribunal, within a period
of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4818/2008 ORDER DATED: 04/09/2024
undefined
7.4 The Tribunal shall disburse the entire awarded amount
(including the enhanced amount) lying in the FDR and/or with the
Tribunal, with accrued interest thereon if any, to the claimant, by
account payee cheque, after proper verification and after following
due procedure.
7.5 While making the payment, the Tribunal shall deduct the
courts fees, if not paid, in accordance with rules/law.
7.6 Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned
Tribunal, forthwith.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J)
SLOCK BAROT
