Gujarat High Court
Harshibhai Gopalbhai Matang vs Samji Bhoja Harijan on 6 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3784/2012 ORDER DATED: 06/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3784 of 2012
==========================================================
HARSHIBHAI GOPALBHAI MATANG
Versus
SAMJI BHOJA HARIJAN & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MEHUL S SHAH(772) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR P P LAKHANI(6949) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
MS AMI K PATEL(3152) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
SERVED BY AFFIX. (R) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 06/02/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present First Appeal, under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, is preferred by the appellant - original
claimant challenging the judgment and award passed by the
Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.) Kachchh dated
31/07/2012 in M.A.C. Petition No. 372 of 1999, by which the
tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.70,400/- with 7.5%
interest to the claimants from the date of application till its
realization, holding insurance company liable.
2. The brief facts of the case are that accident that victim was
travelling in the rickshaw which came to be dashed by the truck
coming in wrong side whereby the injured sustained grievous
injuries on various parts of the body.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3784/2012 ORDER DATED: 06/02/2025
undefined
3. The claim petition came to be filed by the present
appellants claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- from the
respondents wherein the tribunal was considering oral as well as
documentary evidence led by the parties and submissions made
at the bar partly allowed the claim petition by awarding
compensation as noted above.
4. Heard learned advocates for the parties.
5. Learned advocate Mr.Mehta for the appellant - claimant
has submitted that the tribunal has committed an error in not
properly calculating the amount of prospective income while
awarding the just and fair compensation. He has submitted that
since the injured was serving as Rickshaw Driver operator, the
amount under the head of future prospect is required to be
enhanced. He has further submitted that considering the nature
of injuries, the disability may be considered as 33%.
5.1 He has submitted that the compensation is required to be
enhanced by modifying the award impugned accordingly and
this appeal may be allowed.
6. Per contra, Mr.Nanavaty, learned advocate for respondent -
Insurance Company has submitted that the impugned judgment
and award passed by the Tribunal is just and proper. The
Tribunal has rightly considered the income of the injured, the
age of the injured and the dependency. He has submitted that
considering the nature of injury, the tribunal has awarded just
and fair compensation and this appeal may be dismissed and no
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3784/2012 ORDER DATED: 06/02/2025
undefined
interference be made by this Court.
7. 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.
8. I have 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 learned Tribunal. From the record, it
transpires that the injured was aged about 48 years and was
serving as Rickshaw Driver operator and considering the age of
the victim, the tribunal ought to have considered the grant of
prospective income at 25% while considering the income of
victim at Rs.2,000/-. Therefore, it would meet the ends of justice
if 25% prospective income is added per month as per the ratio
laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma
versus Delhi Transport Corporation reported in (2009) 6 SCC
121. To be noted that, considering the nature of injuries and the
period of hospitalization, the functional disability is assessed at
33% and there is no dispute on the said aspect. Thus, the future
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3784/2012 ORDER DATED: 06/02/2025
undefined
loss of income would come to Rs.1,28,700/- which is required to
be awarded to the claimants.
9. Therefore, total compensation would be as under, which
the claimant/s is/are entitled to get.
Particulars Amount (Rs.)
Future Loss of Income [Rs.2,000/- + 25% 1,28,700/-
prospective income and 33% thereof
functional disability (x) 12 (x) 13 (multiplier)]
Actual loss of income 4,000/-
Pain shock and suffering 15,000/-
Medical Expenses 7,500/-
Attendant and Special Diet 10,000/-
Total 1,65,200/-
Already awarded by the tribunal 70,400/-
Enhanced amount of compensation 94,800/-
10. Therefore, I hold that the claimants are entitled to get the
total amount of compensation of Rs.1,65,200/- 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 remain same.
11. For the reasons recorded above, the following order is
passed.
12. The present appeal is partly allowed.
12.1 The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3784/2012 ORDER DATED: 06/02/2025
undefined
enhanced amount Rs.94,800/- with 7.5% p.a. interest from the
date of claim petition till its realization before the concerned
Tribunal, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of
this order.
12.2 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 claimants, by account payee cheque /
NEFT / RTGS, after proper verification and after following due
procedure.
12.3 While making the payment, the Tribunal shall deduct the
courts fees, if not paid, in accordance with rules/law.
12.4 Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned
Tribunal, forthwith.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
sompura
