Gujarat High Court

Sandip Bhikabhai Patel vs Mejarsing Raghuvarsinh on 11 September, 2024

                                                                                                                   NEUTRAL CITATION




                            C/FA/2167/2009                                       JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2024

                                                                                                                   undefined




                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                               R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2167 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 ?

                      ==========================================================
                                                  SANDIP 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 SERVED 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/2167/2009 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.1703 of 2000, by which the Tribunal has awarded

compensation of Rs.2,04,240/- 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/2167/2009 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/2167/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2024

undefined

loss of amenities of life, loss of marriage prospect, etc. It

is submitted that the Tribunal has committed error in

considering the monthly income of the injured Rs.1,800/-,

which should be Rs.2,500/- considering the fact that he

was doing service for miscellaneous work in Aavas

Corporation, Sanad, and taking into account the

minimum wages prevailed in the relevant time.

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 18 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/2167/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2024

undefined

pain, shock and suffering, which should be Rs.50,000/-,

instead of 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.10,000/- 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.50,000/- is also required to be awarded towards loss

of marriage prospect. 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/2167/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2024

undefined

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. 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/2167/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2024

undefined

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.

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,

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/2167/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2024

undefined

prospective income, multiplier, special diet, transportation

and attendant charges, pain, shock and suffering, actual

loss, loss of amenities of life, loss of marriage prospect,

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.1,800/-, which should

be Rs.2,500/- considering the fact that he was doing

service for miscellaneous work in Aavas Corporation,

Sanad, and taking into account the minimum wages

prevailed in the relevant time. 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., 21 years, addition to the extent of

40% is required to be granted in the monthly income.

Therefore, it would come to Rs.3,500/- 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. 21 years at

the time of accident, multiplier of 18 is required to be

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/2167/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2024

undefined

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.3,500/- x 15% x 12 (monthly) x 18 (multiplier) would

come to Rs.1,13,400/- which would be the future loss of

income of the claimant.

6.3 Furthermore, actual loss of income should be

Rs.15,000/-, instead of Rs.5,400/- considering the monthly

income Rs.2,500/- of the claimant for 6 months, instead

of 3 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.10,000/- 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/-

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/2167/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2024

undefined

is required to be awarded towards loss of amenities of

life. Furthermore, in addition to the amount awarded by

the Tribunal, considering the facts and circumstances of

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

towards loss of marriage prospect. 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                                             1,13,400/-

                            Actual loss of income                                                 15,000/-

                            Pain, shock and suffering                                             50,000/-

                            Medical expenses                                                  1,22,000/-

                            Special diet, transportation,                                         60,000/-

                            attendant charges

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

                            Loss of marriage prospect                                             50,000/-





                                                                                                                          NEUTRAL CITATION




                            C/FA/2167/2009                                             JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2024

                                                                                                                         undefined




                                                                                Total...                  5,10,400/-

                            Less : Amount which is already                                              2,04,240/-

                            awarded

                            Additional amount which is awarded                                          3,06,160/-

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

get the total amount of compensation of Rs.5,10,400/- 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.2,04,240/- and, therefore, remaining amount of

Rs.3,06,160/- 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

extent.