Gujarat High Court
Prasad Govindrao Kajale vs Abhayrai Ludurram Yadav on 10 September, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2022/2011 ORDER DATED: 10/09/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2022 of 2011
==========================================================
PRASAD GOVINDRAO KAJALE
Versus
ABHAYRAI LUDURRAM YADAV & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MTM HAKIM(1190) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS HINA DESAI(1023) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 10/09/2024
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
18.10.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.),
Vadodara, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.926 of 2003, by
which the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.4,57,019/- 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 the day of accident i.e. on 10/03/2003 at about 02:00 in the
noon, the claimant was proceeding from Valsad to Abrama by driving
Motorcycle No.GJ-15-J-8208 in moderate speed and on the left side of
road. While, he reached at the place of accident, at that time, the
S.T. Bus No.GJ-18-V-1297 i.e. the driver of S.T. Bus opponent No.1
came from opposite side in the rash and negligent manner with full
speed and without observing traffic rules and therefore, he has lost
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2022/2011 ORDER DATED: 10/09/2024
undefined
the control over his S.T. Bus and the said S.T. Bus came on the
wrong side. As a result thereof; the opponent No.1 has dashed his
S.T. Bus with the Motorcycle of claimant and therefore, the claimant
has been thrown away and sustained serious injuries.
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; injuries received, future loss of income etc. He has
submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error by not
considering 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) Govind Yadav Vs. New India
Insurance Company Limited reported in (2011) 10 SCC 683.
3.1 He has further submitted that taking into consideration the age
and work profile of the claimant, as the claimant was working in
railway department and at the time of the accident the claimant was
aged 33 years and therefore, appropriate enhancement be made by
modifying the award impugned. He has submitted that the appeal
may be allowed.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2022/2011 ORDER DATED: 10/09/2024
undefined
4. Per contra, learned advocate for respondent No.2 - Gujarat
State Road Transport Corporation has submitted that the impugned
judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is just and proper. The
Tribunal has rightly considered the compensation and the amount of
compensation has rightly been awarded under various heads. She
has submitted that the Tribunal has assessed the disability
certificates and awarded just and proper compensation to the
claimant. She has submitted that no interference is required in the
impugned award. She has submitted that this appeal may be
dismissed.
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 Tribunal has considered the income of
Rs.1,61,712/- p.a., as the injured was working in railway department
as Assistant Loco Pilot in Western Railway and therefore, considering
the income of the claimant and the same is required to considered
for the amount of compensation.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2022/2011 ORDER DATED: 10/09/2024
undefined
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. 33 years. Looking to the injuries, it appears that the
claimant has received serious injuries on face in the accident and due
to the accident, the claimant got permanent partial disability of right
lower limb, therefore, considering the same, 20% disability of body
as a whole is 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. 33 years, multiplier of 16 is
required to be awarded. Thus, amount towards future loss of income
would come to Rs.1,61,712/- (annual income) X 20% X 16 (multiplier)
= Rs.5,17,478/-.
6.4 It is submitted by learned advocate for the appellant that
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 :
Particulars Amount (Rs.)
Pain, shock and suffering 30,000/-
Future loss of income 5,17,478/-
Actual loss of income 80,856/-
Special diet, attendant and Transportation 26,900/-
charges
Damages to motorcycle 9,000/-
Medical Expenses 1,61,211/-
Total... 8,25,445/-
Amount awarded by the tribunal... 4,57,019/-
Enhanced amount... 3,68,426/-
6.7 Thus, the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding total
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2022/2011 ORDER DATED: 10/09/2024
undefined
compensation of Rs.4,57,019/- under various heads. The appellant -
original claimant is entitled to the additional amount of compensation
of Rs.3,68,426/- over and above the amount of Rs.4,57,019/- 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 and award dated 18.10.2010 passed by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Vadodara, in Motor Accident
Claim Petition No.926 of 2003 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.3,68,426/-
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.
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
