First Appeal No. 1648 of 2011. Case: National Insurance Company Limited Vs Chintu Chunilal Prajapati and Ors.. Gujarat High Court

Case Number:First Appeal No. 1648 of 2011
Party Name:National Insurance Company Limited Vs Chintu Chunilal Prajapati and Ors.
Counsel:For Appellant: Maulik J. Shelat, Advocate and For Respondents: Vilav K. Bhatia, Advocate
Judges:Abdullah Gulamahmed Uraizee, J.
Issue:Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 173
Judgement Date:March 15, 2017
Court:Gujarat High Court
 
FREE EXCERPT

Judgment:

Abdullah Gulamahmed Uraizee, J.

  1. The appellant-Insurance Company is in appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ("M.V. Act" for short) to question the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal by judgment and award dated 29.12.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Aux.), Evening Court, Ahmedabad City in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 875 of 2004.

  2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 04.04.2004, the applicant herein was traveling as a passenger in an auto rickshaw bearing registration No. GJ-1-XX-4524 which was owned by the opponent No. 4 and insured with appellant Insurance Company herein and was going towards Gota Cross Roads from Adalaj. It is averred by the applicant that at that time when the driver of the rickshaw was driving on the highway and was proceeding towards Gota Cross Roads, at that time the driver of the Matadar bearing registration No. GJ-8-U-4033 owned by the opponent No1, at about 2.30 p.m., came there driving the Matadar at a great speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed with the auto rickshaw from behind and caused serious injuries to the applicant herein. He, therefore, preferred Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 875 of 2004 in the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Aux.), Evening Court, Ahmedabad City to recover compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 15%.

  3. The tribunal by the impugned judgment and award partly allowed the claim petition and directed the appellant and respondents No. 1 and 2 to pay a sum of Rs. 4,45,000/- with 9% interest jointly and severally and the insurance company being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation is in the appeal.

  4. I have heard Mr. Maulik J. Shelat, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr. Vilav K. Bhatia, learned advocate for the respondent No. 3 - Original claimant. There is no representation on behalf of the respondents No. 1 and 2 despite service of notice of the appeal.

  5. Mr. Shelat, learned advocate for the appellant would submit that the Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of deceased at Rs. 3,000/- without there being any evidence. It is his further submission that the compensation under the head of disfigurement and loss of amenities is dehors any evidence. He, therefore, urges that the appeal may be allowed and the impugned judgment and award may be modified accordingly.

  6. Mr. Bhatia, learned advocate for the respondent No. 3 - original claimants has supported the...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL