Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1658 (GUJ)

Ramji Vishram Barot v. Lalji Daya Sorathiya

2022-11-30

NIRAL R.MEHTA

body2022
JUDGMENT : NIRAL R. MEHTA 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and award dated 13.3.2006 passed in Motor Accident Claims Petition No.15 of 2000 by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Fast Track Court, Anjar – Kutch, the appellant – original claimant has preferred the present appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (“the Act” for short). 2. The original claim of the claimant was for Rs.3,00,000/-. However, learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,15,250/- with 9% interest under the various heads as under. Pain, Shock and Suffering Rs.7,500/- Medical expense Rs.25,000/- Attendant charges Rs.2,000/- Transportation expenses Rs.1,000/- Special diet Rs.1,000/- Actual loss of income Rs.4,500/- Future loss of income Rs.74,250/- Total Rs.1,15,250/- 3. It is the case of the claimant that on 18.9.1999 while he was walking on the street, the scooter bearing registration No.GJ 12 R 7413 came on the wrong side and dashed with the claimant. As a result thereof, the claimant sustained serious injuries on various parts of his body, such as on chest, hands, stomach and right leg. The claimant was, therefore, admitted as indoor patient in the hospital of Dr.Hemant Patel for a period between 18.9.1999 and 23.9.1999. Thus, the claimant has approached the learned Tribunal by way of an application under section 166 of the Act seeking, inter alia, compensation for the injuries so received arising from the motor vehicular accident. 4. Learned Tribunal, after having considered the evidence on record, held the driver of the offending scooter as sole responsible for the accident in question. Learned Tribunal, thereafter, proceeded to award compensation by considering the income of the claimant at Rs.1500/- per month. Learned Tribunal, thereafter, considering injury certificate assessed permanent disability body as a whole to the extent of 25%. Learned Tribunal, having considered the age of the claimant at 52 years, adopted multiplier of 11. Accordingly, learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.74,250/- under the head of loss of future income. Learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.7500/- under the head of pain, shock and suffering. Learned Tribunal awarded Rs.25,000/- under the head of medical expenses, Rs.2000/- under the head of attendant charges, Rs.1000/- under the head of transportation charges, Rs.1000/- under the head of special diet and Rs.4500/- under the head of actual loss of income. Learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.7500/- under the head of pain, shock and suffering. Learned Tribunal awarded Rs.25,000/- under the head of medical expenses, Rs.2000/- under the head of attendant charges, Rs.1000/- under the head of transportation charges, Rs.1000/- under the head of special diet and Rs.4500/- under the head of actual loss of income. Thus, in all, learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,15,250/- by way of compensation with 9% interest from the date of application till realization. 5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the aforesaid, the appellant has approached this Court by way of this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 6. I have heard learned advocate Mr.Samee Uraizee, learned advocate for Mr.Mehul Shah, learned advocate for the appellant and Ms.Reshma Rauma, learned advocate for Mr.Vasant Shah, learned advocate for the insurance company. 7. Learned advocate Mr.Uraizee for the appellant submits that the award passed by learned Tribunal is on lower side and cannot be said to be just and adequate in nature. Learned advocate Mr.Uraizee submitted that learned Tribunal has committed serious error in considering notional income of the claimant at Rs.1500/- in absence of any evidence of income. Learned advocate Mr.Uraizee submitted that learned Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration the daily wages prevalent at the time of accident so as to arrive to a conclusion with regard to monthly income. Accordingly, Mr.Uraizee, learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that notional income of the appellant ought to have been considered at Rs.2000/- per month. 8. Learned advocate Mr.Uraizee further submitted that while computing income, prospective rise in income also to be considered. To substantiate the said contention, learned advocate Mr.Uraizee has heavily relied upon the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs Pranay Sethi and others, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 . Thus, according to Mr.Uraizee, keeping in mind the age of the claimant at 52 years, future rise of income at 10% be considered. Learned advocate Mr.Uraizee further submitted that learned Tribunal has also committed an error in ascertaining permanent disability body as a whole at 25%. Learned advocate Mr.Uraizee further submitted that so far as compensation under the head of pain, shock and suffering is concerned, the same is also on lower side and thereby according to him, as per injuries, learned Tribunal ought to have awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/-. Learned advocate Mr.Uraizee further submitted that so far as compensation under the head of pain, shock and suffering is concerned, the same is also on lower side and thereby according to him, as per injuries, learned Tribunal ought to have awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/-. Learned advocate Mr.Uraizee lastly submitted that learned Tribunal has committed an error in not awarding any amount under the head of loss of amenities of life. 9. By making the above submissions, learned advocate Mr.Uraizee has prayed this Court to enhance the compensation adequately. 10. Per contra, learned advocate Ms.Reshma Rauma for the insurance company has vehemently opposed the present appeal contending that judgment and award passed by learned Tribunal is perfectly justified and compensation is just and adequate in nature. Ms.Rauma, learned advocate submitted that income assessed by learned Tribunal is also justified as there is no income proof produced on record and considering the situation prevalent in the said year, notional income at Rs.1500/- per month is justified. Ms.Rauma, learned advocate further submitted that learned Tribunal has also assessed disability at 25% considering disability certificate issued by the medical expert and hence, in absence of any such contradictory evidence produced on record, the same cannot be interfered with. However, she does not dispute the ratio laid down by the Honourable Apex Court in the case of Pranay Shethi (supra) and in the case of Sarla Verma Vs Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 . 11. By making the above submissions, Ms.Rauma, learned advocate for the insurance company has prayed this Court to pass appropriate order in the interest of justice. 12. I have heard learned advocates for the respective parties and have gone through the Record and Proceedings of the concerned Tribunal. No other and further submissions have been canvassed by learned advocates appearing for the respective parties except what is stated hereinabove. 13. Having considered the submissions of learned advocates for the respective parties and having gone through the material on record, the short question that falls for consideration of this Court is whether the award passed by learned Tribunal could be said as just and adequate ? 14. So as to decide the aforesaid question, first of all, income of the claimant deserves to be ascertained carefully. 14. So as to decide the aforesaid question, first of all, income of the claimant deserves to be ascertained carefully. In every case of compensation, income is basic ingredient and thus, the same has to be decided by way of various methods, more particularly, when income proof is not on record. In the instant case, the claimant could not produce income proof and thereby notional income is required to be assumed. So as to arrive at the notional income, in my view, if the schedule for daily wages prevalent at the relevant point of time is perused, would be reasonable in nature. I have perused the schedule of daily wages prevalent at the relevant point of time. On perusal, as per the schedule, skilled daily wager was getting Rs.2000/- per month. Thus, keeping in mind the claimant’s nature of work i.e. veterinary although not qualified veterinary doctor, but expert in veterinary field, I propose to take Rs.2000/- per month as notional income. Considering the age 52 years and keeping in mind the ratio laid down by the Honourable Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), prospective income deserves to be added at 10%. The multiplier adopted by learned Tribunal is in conformity with the law laid down by the Honourable Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and I held the same at 11 multiplier. So far as pain, shock and suffering is concerned, considering the treatment, injuries and tenure as indoor patient, in my view, Rs.15000/- would be just and adequate. Since learned Tribunal has not awarded anything under the head of loss of amenities in life, I propose to award Rs.15,000/- under the said head. Rest of the compensation awarded by learned Tribunal under various heads appears to be reasonable and thereby not disturbed. 15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the compensation awarded by learned Tribunal is held to be not just and adequate and thereby the same deserves to be modified as under. Future loss of income Rs.82,500/- Pain, Shock and Suffering Rs.15,000/- Medical expenses Rs.25,000/- Special diet and attendant charges Rs.10,000/- Loss of amenities. Rs.15,000/- Total Rs.1,47,500/- 16. Learned Tribunal has awarded the compensation of Rs.1,15,250/-. Hence, the claimant shall be entitled for additional amount of Rs.32,250/-. 17. Resultantly, the appeal is partly allowed. Future loss of income Rs.82,500/- Pain, Shock and Suffering Rs.15,000/- Medical expenses Rs.25,000/- Special diet and attendant charges Rs.10,000/- Loss of amenities. Rs.15,000/- Total Rs.1,47,500/- 16. Learned Tribunal has awarded the compensation of Rs.1,15,250/-. Hence, the claimant shall be entitled for additional amount of Rs.32,250/-. 17. Resultantly, the appeal is partly allowed. The claimant shall be entitled to Rs.32,250/- by way of additional amount with 6% interest from the date of application till the realization. The respondent insurance company is hereby directed to deposit a sum of Rs.32,250/- with 6% interest within a period of 12 weeks after receipt of the copy of the order. Learned Tribunal, in turn, shall disburse the same in favour of the claimant after proper verification. R & P be sent back forthwith.