Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 8752 Guj
Judgement Date : 18 September, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4885/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4885 of 2008
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 ?
==========================================================
CHAUDHARY BABABHAI RAMSANGBHAI
Versus
ANILKUMAR RAMNIKLAL PATEL DRIVER/OWNER GJ-1-R-7694 & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DK CHAUDHARI(5361) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR SUNIL B PARIKH(582) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 18/09/2024
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/4885/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2024
undefined
judgment and award dated 18.03.2008 passed by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Mehsana in
Motor Accident Claim Petition No.1925 of 1999, by which
the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.68,200/-
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 12-11-1999, the injured was waiting at Visnagar
in the afternoon for the bus on the side of the road at
the bus stand. At that time, at around 13.45 p.m.,
opponent No.1 drove his Maruti no. Purzdpe of GJ-1-R-
7694 and by mistake came on the wrong side and
bumped into the applicant Hence, the appellant got
injured. 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4885/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2024
undefined
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 prospective income, and pain, shock and
suffering, etc. It is submitted that the Tribunal has
rightly considered the monthly income of the injured
Rs.2,500/- after considering the material available on the
record and taking into account the nature of work of the injured, and considering the minimum wages prevailed at
the relevant time, which is not disputed by learned
advocate for the appellant. 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 15% may be granted in monthly income of
the injured. Furthermore, it is submitted that the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4885/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2024
undefined
Tribunal has rightly considered the disability, which is
not in dispute in the present case. 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.25,000/-, instead
of Rs.5,000/- 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 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 advocate for respondent No.2 -
insurance company has 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4885/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2024
undefined
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
prospective income. 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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4885/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2024
undefined
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 prospective income, and pain, shock
and suffering, 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 taken into
consideration the monthly income of the claimant
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4885/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2024
undefined
Rs.2,500/-, which the Tribunal has rightly considered
after considering the documentary evidences available on
the record, and the same is not disputed by learned
advocate for the appellant. Furthermore, considering
various above-mentioned judgments of the Hon'ble Apex
and taking into account the age of the claimant, addition
to the extent of 10% is required to be granted in the
monthly income. It is required to take note of the fact
that learned advocate for the appellant has not disputed
multiplier and disability considered by the Tribunal.
Otherwise also, the Tribunal has rightly considered those
aspects. Therefore, Rs.2,750/- x 15% x 12 (monthly) x 9
(multiplier) would come to Rs.44,550/- which would be
the future loss of income of the claimant.
6.3 Furthermore, the Tribunal has erred in awarding
Rs.5,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering, which
should be Rs.25,000/- considering the injuries and
treatment as well as taking into account various
decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4885/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2024
undefined
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 44,550/-
Actual loss of income 2,500/-
Pain, shock and suffering 25,000/-
Medical expenses 26,200/-
Special diet, transportation, 3,000/-
attendant charges
Total... 1,01,250/-
Less : Amount which is already 68,200/-
awarded
Additional amount which is awarded 33,050/-
7. Therefore, I hold that the claimant/s are entitled to
get the total amount of compensation of Rs.1,01,250/-
with 7.5% p.a. interest from the date of filing the claim
petition till its realisation, which would meet the ends of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4885/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2024
undefined
justice. Rest of the direction(s) of the Tribunal shall
remain same. The Tribunal has already awarded
Rs.68,200/- and, therefore, remaining amount of
Rs.33,050/- 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.
8.2 The impugned judgment and award dated 18.03.2008
passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Mehsana in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.1925 of
1999 is modified to the aforesaid extent.
8.3 The respondent No.2 - Insurance Company is
directed to deposit the enhanced amount Rs.33,050/- with
7.5% p.a. interest from the date of claim petition till its
realisation before the concerned Tribunal, within a period
of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4885/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2024
undefined
8.4 The Tribunal shall disburse the entire awarded
amount lying in the FDR and/or with the Tribunal, with
accrued interest thereon, if any, to the claimant/s, by
account payee cheque / NEFT / RTGS, after proper
verification and after following due procedure.
8.5 While making the payment, the Tribunal shall
deduct the courts fees, if not paid, in accordance with
rules/law.
8.6 Record and proceedings be sent back to the
concerned Tribunal, forthwith.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J) DIWAKAR SHUKLA
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!