Gujarat High Court
National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Gopalbhai Nannabhia Panchal on 17 September, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3888/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3888 of 2010
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD
Versus
GOPALBHAI NANNABHIA PANCHAL & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DAKSHESH MEHTA(2430) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
ADVOCATE NOTICE UNSERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 17/09/2024
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal is filed by the appellant - Insurance
Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, being
aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and award
dated 11.8.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3888/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2024
undefined
Tribunal (Aux.) in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.7416 of
2006, by which, the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim
petition by awarding Rs.4,515,00/- with 7.5% p.a. interest to
be paid to claimant/s, by holding opponents liable, jointly and
severally.
2. The facts of the present appeal are as under :
2.1 The claimants filed the claim petition stating that on
26.10.2005 at about 7.45, the applicant was going towards
Suryamandir Vaghasi to attend his job as a Security Guard
by driving his bicycle at a moderate speed and on the correct
side of the road and when he reached near Vaghasi patia,
Santram way bridge on road at that time, one truck No.HR-
56-4036 driven by opponent no.2 in a rash and negligent
manner and at an excessive speed endangering human life
and came on wrong side of the road and dashed with the
bicycle from behind and thus accident took place, wherein the
claimant suffered serious injuries and therefore the claim
petition was filed for compensation.
2.2 Notices were served on the opponents. The opponent
no.3-insurance company has filed written statement denying
the contents of the claim petition. The issues were framed by
the Tribunal. Oral as well as documentary evidence were led
before the Tribunal. After hearing the submissions made by
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3888/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2024
undefined
the rival parties, the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim
petition(s) and awarded compensation as noted above.
2.3 Hence, the opponent-no.3-insurance company has filed
the present appeal before this Court.
3. Learned advocate for the appellant has assailed the
impugned judgment and award only on the ground of
quantum. He submitted that the claimant did not produce
any cogent and convincing evidence with regard to the
income; that there is no evidence to show 100% loss of
earning capacity and the learned Tribunal should have
considered the nature of 30% disability looking to the nature
of work and injury and particularly, when both the advocates
have filed a joint purshis to consider the disability at 33%.
He submitted that looking to the age of the claimant at 55
years and considering the notional income of Rs.1,500/- per
month and taking multiplier of 8, the future loss of income
should be considered; further the compensation under the
head of pain, shock and suffering, actual loss of income,
medical expenses, loss of amenities, special diet and
attendance, transportation should be awarded at a much
lesser figure i.e. Rs.25,000/-, Rs.6,000/-, Rs.15,000/-,
Rs.10,000/-, Rs.10,000/- and Rs.3,000/- and therefore the
amount of compensation which should be awarded would be
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3888/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2024
undefined
Rs.1,16,520/- instead of Rs.4,51,500/- as awarded the learned
Tribunal. He, therefore, submitted that on properly
appreciating the evidence led before the learned Tribunal, this
should be the just and proper compensation and the learned
Tribunal has awarded exorbitant amount under the heads,
which needs to be reduced by allowing this appeal.
4. There is no representation on behalf of the
claimants.
5. I have considered the submissions made at the bar. I
have perused the record and proceedings. I have gone
through the impugned judgment and award passed by the
Tribunal. I have also considered the pleadings of the parties
before the Tribunal.
5.1 The factum of accident, the involvement of offending
truck, the negligence of the offending truck, the accidental
injuries caused in the accident is not disputed. The claimant
was working as a Security guard at the time of accident.
Due to the accident, he took treatment for long time as
indoor patient, his both legs were treated, right leg above
knee was amputated, there was fracture of left leg, he
suffered lots of pain, shock and suffering and also lost his
job due to the same. The claimant was aged 55 years at the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3888/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2024
undefined
time of accident. He was earning Rs.2250/- by working as a
security guard and he was relieved due to the said accident.
Considering the facts of the case, and considering the
minimum wages in the year 2005, the learned Tribunal has
considered the income of the claimant at Rs.2250/- and
further considering the age of the claimant and the ratio laid
down in the case of Sarla Verma V/s Delhi Transport
Corporation reported in (2009)6 SCC 121, the multiplier of 11
was applied and the future loss of income was arrived at
Rs.2,97,000/-, which is just and proper,
5.2 As far as the disability of 100% considered by the
learned Tribunal, considering the manner of accident, the
amputation of above the knee of right leg and the STG on
left side leg, the claimant has become unfit for any kind of
work, and therefore, in view of the well settled position of
law, the economic and functional disability will have to be
treated as total even though the physical disability is not
100%. Therefore, this finding is also just and proper.
5.3 As regards the quantum awarded under other
heads, the period and nature of treatment the claimant had
undergone, the indoor treatment and outdoor treatment which
continued for a very long time, the medical bills produced
and the need of attendance all the time, special diet and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3888/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2024
undefined
transportation charges are awarded Rs.15,000/-, Rs.7,000/-,
Rs.7,000/-, Rs.7,000/- respectively, which are just and proper.
As regards the amount under the head of pain, shock and
suffering, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.75,000/-,
which is just and proper, as the claimant was suffered
amputation of right leg and fracture on the left leg, which
turned his whole upside down due to the accident and the
pain, shock and suffering he must have undergone cannot be
calculated in terms of money, however, considering the law
laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and discussing the
same in paragraph 15 of the impugned judgment and award,
the amount of Rs.75,000/- is awarded, which cannot be said
to be exorbitant.
5.4 As regards the quantum under the head of loss of
amenities of life, considering the case of Oriental Insurance
Co.Ltd. V/s Satish Sharma and Ors, reported in 2008 ACJ
2259, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.30,000/- under
this head, which again, considering the injuries sustained by
the claimant and the permanent disability sustained by him,
is just and proper.
5.5 In nutshell, the learned Tribunal has discussed in
detail on the point of quantum, considering the judgments on
the heads of quantum and then awarded the compensation,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3888/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/09/2024
undefined
which is not required to be interfered with.
5.6 The claimant has suffered amputation of right leg
and fracture of left leg and he was serving as a security
guard at the time of accident and he lost his income forever
due to the accident. The agony ...mental, physical and
financial, which the claimant and his family must have faced
due to the accident is unimaginable. Even a thought on the
condition of the claimant would create goose bumps.
Therefore also, the amount of compensation awarded is not
required to be interfered with.
6. In view of above, the following order is passed.
6.1 The present appeal is dismissed with no order as to
costs.
6.2 The amount lying with the Tribunal and/or in the FDR,
pursuant to the order of this Court if any, shall be disbursed
to the claimant, along with accrued interest thereon if any,
by account payee cheque, after proper verification and after
following due procedure, within a period of six weeks from
today.
6.3 Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned
Tribunal, forthwith.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J)
SRILATHA
