Gujarat High Court

Laghubhai Arjanbhai vs Bhikhabhai Ukkabhai Rabari on 9 September, 2024

                                                                                                                    NEUTRAL CITATION




                            C/FA/4554/2009                                        JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2024

                                                                                                                     undefined




                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                                R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4554 of 2009


                       FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


                       HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT

                       ==========================================================

                       1     Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed                            No
                             to see the judgment ?

                       2     To be referred to the Reporter or not ?                                     No

                       3     Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy                           No
                             of the judgment ?

                       4     Whether this case involves a substantial question                           No
                             of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
                             of India or any order made thereunder ?

                       ==========================================================
                                                   LAGHUBHAI ARJANBHAI
                                                           Versus
                                             BHIKHABHAI UKKABHAI RABARI & ORS.
                       ==========================================================
                       Appearance:
                       MS AMRITA AJMERA(5204) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
                       MR PALAK H THAKKAR(3455) for the Defendant(s) No. 6
                       MR SUNIL B PARIKH(582) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
                       RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,4,5
                       ==========================================================

                           CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT

                                                             Date : 09/09/2024
                                                             ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The present First Appeal, under Section 173 of

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is preferred by the appellant -

claimant, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/4554/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2024

undefined

judgment and award dated 24.02.2009 passed by the

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Surendranagar in

Motor Accident Claim Petition No.607 of 2001, by which

the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.1,72,800/-

with 9% per annum interest to the claimant/s, holding

opponents liable, jointly and severally.

2. Brief facts of the case as per the case of the

appellant are as under:

2.1 The accident is occurred on 16.01.2001 at about

16.30 hours on Muli-Surendranagar Highway near Nova

Factory near Nova Factory between truck No.GTJ 5878

and deliver van No.GJ-13 T-8450. On the date of accident, Navghanbhai Bhupatbhai, applicant of petition

No.148/02, was travelling in delivery van No. GJ-13 T-

8450 for the purpose of delivery of gas cylinder whereas

applicant, Laghubhai Arjanbhai, was also travelling in

delivery van No.GJ-13-T-8450 as mechanic cum

deliveryman. It is alleged that the said delivery van

driven by opponent No.4, was owned by opponent No.5,

Bhojubha Malubha Zala. It is alleged that when they

reached near the place of accident Muli-Surendranagar

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/4554/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2024

undefined

highway, a truck No. on GTJ 5878 driven by opponent

No.1 and owned by opponent No.2 came with full speed,

in a rash and negligent manner and in breach of traffic

rules and dashed with the delivery van and caused

serious accident. It is alleged that in the said accident,

both the applicant herein sustained serious injuries and

suffered fracture injury. Hence, claim petition has been

preferred.

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. It

is submitted that amount awarded is on lower side as

the Tribunal has not properly considered the various

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/4554/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2024

undefined

aspects; like income of the injured, injuries, prospective

income, multiplier, special diet, transportation and

attendant charges, pain, shock and suffering, actual loss,

medical expenses, artificial limb, loss of amenities of life

etc. It is submitted that the Tribunal has committed

error in considering the monthly income of the injured

Rs.2,400/-, which should be Rs.3,000/- considering the fact

that he was doing work of machine cum delivery man of

gas cylinder, and taking into account the minimum

wages prevailed in the year of accident. Accordingly,

actual loss of income may be increased considering the

income of the injured for ten months. It is submitted

that considering decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

the case of National Insurance Company Limited versus Pranay Shethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, as well as

taking into account the age of the injured, addition to

the extent of 40% may be granted in monthly income of

the injured. Furthermore, it is submitted that the

Tribunal has rightly considered the disability, which is

not in dispute in the present case. Furthermore, the

multiplier should be 17 considering the various decisions

of the Hon'ble Apex Court and taking into account the

age of the claimant. It is submitted that the Tribunal

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/4554/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2024

undefined

has committed an error by not properly considering the

compensation under the head of pain, shock and

suffering, which should be Rs.1,50,000/-, instead of

Rs.50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, looking to the

injuries sustained by the claimant and considering the

decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of : (i)

Pranay Shethi (supra) and (ii) Magma General Insurance

Company Limited versus Nanu Ram and others reported

in (2018) 18 SCC 130. 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.40,000/- instated of

Rs.20,000/- considering the time of treatment taken by

the injured. It is also submitted that the Tribunal has committed error in not awarding any amount towards

loss of amenities of life, which should be Rs.1,50,000/-

considering the treatment taken by the injured and

considering the injuries. Furthermore, it is submitted

that considering the documentary evidence, and medical

papers, Rs.30,000/- is required to be awarded towards

medical expenses, instead of Rs.20,000/- awarded by the

Tribunal. Furthermore, considering the various decisions

of the Hon'ble Apex Court, and taking into account the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/4554/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2024

undefined

injuries received by the claimant; amputation of right leg

and fracture on humorous and plate has been fixed in

humorous, Rs.1,50,000/- is required to be awarded

towards artificial limb. It is submitted that the Tribunal

has rightly awarded the compensation under different

heads, except the above raised. It is submitted that the

appropriate enhancement be granted by modifying the

award impugned. It is submitted that the appeal may be

allowed.

4. Per contra, learned advocates for respondents have submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed

by the Tribunal is just and proper. It is submitted that

the Tribunal has rightly considered the income of the injured. Furthermore, it is submitted that the Tribunal

has rightly considered the compensation towards pain,

shock and suffering, and medical expenses. It is

submitted that the Tribunal has rightly awarded amount

towards special diet, attendant charges, and attendant

charges. It is also submitted that considering the facts

and circumstances of the present, the Tribunal has

rightly not awarded any amount towards loss of

amenities of life. It is also submitted that no interference

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/4554/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2024

undefined

is required in the impugned award. However, from the

submissions made by learned advocate for the appellant

that the Tribunal has committed certain errors, on this

aspect, learned advocate for the respondent/s has

submitted that if this Court feels that there is some

error in calculation of the amount in view of settled

position of law, in awarding compensation by the

Tribunal, then the Court may pass appropriate order by

considering the submissions made by him/her, in the

interest of justice.

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 claimant/s.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/4554/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2024

undefined

6.1 I have heard the learned advocates for the

respective parties and considered the submissions made

by the rival parties. I have perused the record and

proceedings of the Tribunal. I have gone through the

impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.

It is noted that the claimant has by and large claimed

enhancement towards income of the injured, injuries,

prospective income, multiplier, special diet, transportation

and attendant charges, pain, shock and suffering, actual

loss, medical expenses, artificial limb, loss of amenities of

life etc. At the outset, I have considering the decision

cited at the bar by learned advocate for the appellant.

The judgments cited at the bar by learned advocate for the appellant is helpful to the facts of the present case.

6.2 It transpires that the Tribunal has considered the

monthly income of the injured Rs.2,400/-, which should

be Rs.3,000/- considering the fact that he was doing

work of machine cum delivery man of gas cylinder, and

taking into account the minimum wages prevailed in the

year of accident. Furthermore, considering various above-

mentioned judgments of the Hon'ble Apex and taking

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/4554/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2024

undefined

into account the age of the claimant at the time of

accident, i.e., 27 years, addition to the extent of 40% is

required to be granted in the monthly income. Therefore,

it would come to Rs.4,200/- towards prospective income.

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. 27 years at the

time of accident, multiplier of 18 is required to be

granted. It is required to take note of the fact that

learned advocate for the appellant has not disputed

disability considered by the Tribunal. Otherwise also, the

Tribunal has rightly considered those aspects. Therefore,

Rs.4,200/- x 40% x 12 (annual) x 17 (multiplier) would

come to Rs.3,42,720/- which would be the future loss of income of the claimant.

6.3 Furthermore, actual loss of income should be

Rs.30,000/-, instead of Rs.9,600/- considering the monthly

income Rs.3,000/- of the claimant for 10 months, instead

of 4 months after taking into account the injuries and

treatment. Furthermore, the Tribunal has erred in

awarding Rs.50,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering,

which should be Rs.1,50,000/- considering the injuries and

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/4554/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2024

undefined

treatment as well as taking into account various

decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court. Furthermore, the

Tribunal has erred in awarding Rs.20,000/- only towards

special diet, attendant and transportation charges, which

should be Rs.40,000/- considering the injuries and period

of hospitalization of the claimant, as well as treatment

taken by the injured. Furthermore, in view of the recent

law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, Rs.1,50,000/-

is required to be awarded towards loss of amenities of

life. Furthermore, considering the documentary evidence,

and medical papers, Rs.30,000/- is required to be

awarded towards medical expenses, instead of Rs.20,000/-

awarded by the Tribunal. Furthermore, considering the

various decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, and taking into account the injuries received by the claimant; ampu

of right leg and fracture on humorous and plate has

been fixed in humorous, Rs.1,50,000/- is required to be

awarded towards artificial limb. Furthermore, under the

other heads, the amount awarded by the Tribunal are

not disputed by the claimant in the present case.

Otherwise also, the Tribunal has rightly considered the

amount of compensation under other heads.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/4554/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2024

undefined

6.4 Thus, the appellant - claimant is entitled to get the

following final amount as compensation :

                                                   Particulars                          Amount (Rs.)

                             Future loss of income                                                 3,42,720/-

                             Actual loss of income                                                    30,000/-

                             Pain, shock and suffering                                             1,50,000/-

                             Medical expenses                                                         30,000/-

                             Special diet, transportation,                                            40,000/-

                             attendant charges

                             Artificial limb                                                       1,50,000/-

                             Loss of amenities of life                                             1,50,000/-

                                                                             Total...                8,92,720/-

                             Less : Amount which is already                                        1,72,800/-

                             awarded

                              Additional amount which is awarded                                   6,20,320/-

7. Therefore, I hold that the claimant/s are entitled to

get the total amount of compensation of Rs.8,92,720/-

with 9% p.a. interest from the date of filing the claim

petition till its realisation, which would meet the ends of

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/4554/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2024

undefined

justice. Rest of the direction(s) of the Tribunal shall

remain same. The Tribunal has already awarded

Rs.1,72,800/- and, therefore, remaining amount of

Rs.6,20,320/- would be the enhanced amount of

compensation payable to the claimant/s.