Gujarat High Court

Snehalbhai Bhikabhai Patel vs Mejarsing Raghuvarsinh on 11 September, 2024

                                                                                                                    NEUTRAL CITATION




                             C/FA/881/2008                                        JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2024

                                                                                                                    undefined




                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                                R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 881 of 2008


                      FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


                      HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT

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

                      1     Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed                            Yes
                            to see the judgment ?

                      2     To be referred to the Reporter or not ?                                     Yes

                      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 ?

                      ==========================================================
                                                SNEHALBHAI BHIKABHAI PATEL
                                                          Versus
                                              MEJARSING RAGHUVARSINH & ORS.
                      ==========================================================
                      Appearance:
                      MR A R DWIVEDI(11319) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
                      MR R G DWIVEDI(6601) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
                      MR GC MAZMUDAR(1193) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
                      MR HG MAZMUDAR(1194) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
                      MR PALAK H THAKKAR(3455) for the Defendant(s) No. 4
                      RULE NOT RECD BACK for the Defendant(s) No. 3
                      SERVED BY AFFIX. (R) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
                      ==========================================================

                          CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT

                                                             Date : 11/09/2024
                                                             ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The present First Appeal, under Section 173 of

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/881/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2024

undefined

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

claimant, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the

judgment and award dated 06.10.2006 passed by the

Presiding Officer, Fast Tract Court No.2 Ahmedabad (R)

at Navrangpura in Motor Accident Claim Petition

No.1702 of 2000, by which the Tribunal has awarded

compensation of Rs.2,94,000/- with 7.5% 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 On 16.050.2008 at about 10.30 hrs. in the night near Telav Bus Stand due to rash and negligent driving

on the part of the drivers of the vehicles Truck No. GJ

1 V 9616 and GJ 1 U 7419, the accident is occurred. It

is further alleged that on the date of accident, the

claimant was passing near the Bus Stand of Telav

Village and at that time the above said two vehicles

vizp Tanker and Truck collided with each other from the

front side and the accident occurred and after the

accident the machine of the tanker was on and the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/881/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2024

undefined

tanker loaded with highly inflammable liquid and as the

machine of the tanker was on, there was a 2006

sparking and therefore the liquid got fired and as the

claimant was passing nearer to the tanker, he burns

badly. 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

aspects; like income of the injured, injuries, prospective

income, multiplier, special diet, transportation and

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/881/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2024

undefined

loss of amenities of life, loss of father's income, etc. It is

submitted that the Tribunal has committed error in

considering the monthly income of the injured Rs.2,500/-,

which should at least be Rs.60,000/- per annum, looking

to the ITR produced on record, whereby it is found that

the claimant was earning Rs.74,840/-. Accordingly, actual

loss of income may be increased considering the income

of the injured for six months considering the injuries,

more particularly, burn injuries. 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

has committed an error by not properly considering the

compensation under the head of pain, shock and

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/881/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2024

undefined

Rs.15,000/- 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) Govind Yadav vs. New

India Insurance Company Limited reported in (2011) 10

SCC 683. 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.60,000/- instated of

Rs.15,000/- 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.1,00,000/-

considering the treatment taken by the injured and considering the injuries. It is also submitted that in

addition to the amount awarded by the Tribunal,

considering the facts and circumstances of the case,

Rs.20,000/- is also required to be awarded towards loss

of fathers' income. 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/881/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2024

undefined

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. 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 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/881/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2024

undefined

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.

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/881/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2024

undefined

and attendant charges, pain, shock and suffering, actual

loss, loss of amenities of life, loss of father's income, 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.2,500/-, which should at

least be Rs.60,000/- per annum looking to the ITR

produced on record, whereby it is found that the

claimant was earning Rs.74,840/-. Furthermore,

considering various above-mentioned judgments of the

Hon'ble Apex and taking into account the age of the claimant at the time of accident, i.e., 26 years, addition

to the extent of 40% is required to be granted in the

monthly income. Therefore, it would come to Rs.84,000/-

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. 26 years at the time of accident, multiplier

of 17 is required to be granted. It is required to take

note of the fact that learned advocate for the appellant

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/881/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2024

undefined

has not disputed disability considered by the Tribunal.

Otherwise also, the Tribunal has rightly considered those

aspects. Therefore, Rs.84,000/- x 15% x 12 (monthly) x

17 (multiplier) would come to Rs.2,14,200/- which would

be the future loss of income of the claimant.

6.3 Furthermore, actual loss of income should be

Rs.20,000/-, instead of Rs.10,000/- considering the monthly

income Rs.5,000/- of the claimant for 6 months after

taking into account the injuries and treatment.

Furthermore, the Tribunal has erred in awarding

Rs.15,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering, which

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

treatment as well as taking into account various decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court. Furthermore, the

Tribunal has erred in awarding Rs.15,000/- only towards

special diet, attendant and transportation charges, which

should be Rs.60,000/- 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.1,00,000/-

is required to be awarded towards loss of amenities of

life. Furthermore, in addition to the amount awarded by

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/881/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2024

undefined

the Tribunal, considering the facts and circumstances of

the case, Rs.50,000/- is also required to be awarded

towards loss of father's income. 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.

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

following final amount as compensation :

                                                  Particulars                              Amount (Rs.)

                            Future loss of income                                                      2,14,200-

                            Actual loss of income                                                        20,000/-

                            Pain, shock and suffering                                                    50,000/-

                            Medical expenses                                                         1,82,000/-

                            Special diet, transportation,                                                60,000/-

                            attendant charges

                            Loss of amenities of life                                                1,00,000/-

                            Loss of father's income                                                      20,000/-

                                                                             Total...                  6,46,200/-







                                                                                                                         NEUTRAL CITATION




                             C/FA/881/2008                                            JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2024

                                                                                                                        undefined




                            Less : Amount which is already                                             2,94,000/-

                            awarded

                            Additional amount which is awarded                                         3,52,200/-

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

get the total amount of compensation of Rs.6,46,200/-

with 7.5% p.a. interest from the date of filing the claim

petition till its realisation, which would meet the ends of

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

remain same. The Tribunal has already awarded

Rs.2,94,000/- and, therefore, remaining amount of

Rs.3,52,200/- would be the enhanced amount of

compensation payable to the claimant/s.

8. For the reasons recorded above, the following order

is passed.

8.1 The present appeal is allowed to the aforesaid