First Appeal No. 2519 of 1994. Case: Chhaganbhai Bhatubhai Vs Bijalbhai Malabhai and Ors.. Gujarat High Court
|Case Number:||First Appeal No. 2519 of 1994|
|Party Name:||Chhaganbhai Bhatubhai Vs Bijalbhai Malabhai and Ors.|
|Counsel:||For Appellant: D.J. Bhatt, Advocate|
|Judges:||S.G. Shah, J.|
|Issue:||Motor Vehicles Act|
|Judgement Date:||March 14, 2017|
|Court:||Gujarat High Court|
S.G. Shah, J.
Heard learned advocate Mr. D.J. Bhatt for the appellant and learned advocate Mr. Palak H. Thakkar for respondent No. 3 - insurance company. Respondent No. 1 being driver of the vehicle in question has been deleted. Whereas respondent No. 2 being owner of the vehicle in question, though duly served, has remained absent. Perused the record and proceedings received from the tribunal concerned.
The appellant is a victim of vehicular accident. He has challenged the award dated 25.11.1992 in M.A.C.P. No. 25 of 1986 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary) of Panchamahals at Godhra, who has while allowing the claim petition partly awarded a sum of Rs. 1,57,000/- against his claim of Rs. 2,73,000/-. Thereby, he prefers an appeal for the enhancement of quantum of compensation. When driver, owner or insurance company has not challenged such award in favour of the appellant, now it is admitted position that appellant has received injuries in vehicular accident and that because of such injuries, respondents are liable to pay compensation to the appellant. Therefore, details of accident and question of negligence need not be discussed in detail. Thereby, the issue to be dealt with in this appeal is limited to the quantum of compensation only.
For consideration of quantum of compensation that was awarded to the appellant, following information is material:-
3.1 For awarding Rs. 4,320/- for future loss of income, the tribunal has considered Rs. 600/- as monthly income of the appellant/victim and considering 3% disablement and thus loss of earning capacity, Rs. 18/- is considered as monthly loss and applying 20 as a suitable multiplier considering the age of the victim as 22 years. Whereas for awarding Rs. 2680/- towards medicine etc. no reason whatsoever is assigned, that how tribunal has arrived at such figure and that why there is a specific amount of Rs. 2680/- i.e. odd amount towards medicine etc though there is no specific evidence produced to that effect on record, which goes to show that tribunal has decided to award lumpsum Rs. 7000/- to the appellant and, therefore, considering the award of Rs. 4320/- for loss of future income, an amount of Rs. 2680/- is awarded towards different heads as above. Whereas for pain, shock and suffering while awarding Rs. 1,50,000/- tribunal has considered that victim has became impotent on account of fractures sustained by him and relying upon a decision in case of A.S. Rajaram @ Raja Vamshyam Murthi v. Joitaram Rawabhai Patel reported in (1982) XXIII (2) GLR 29, awarded such compensation.
So as to...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL