Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Gujarat
  4. /
  5. 2012
  6. /
  7. January

Mr vs Notice Served For

High Court Of Gujarat|21 June, 2012
1 The appellant, original claimant, has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for enhancement, against the judgment and award dated 30th September 1997 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Vadodara, in M.A.C. Petition No.1220 of 1991, whereby, the Tribunal awarded Rs.2,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the claim petition till realization against the opponents jointly and severally.
2 On 6.7.1990, on Vadodara-Dabhoi Highway, the minor-claimant along with his grand-father, after alighting from the ST Bus at the bus-stand of village Farti-Kui, was crossing the road. At that time, from Vadodara side, opponent No.1 came there driving his tanker No. GJ-6-T-4722 with excessive speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the minor-claimant, due to which, the claimant sustained serious bodily injuries. After the accident, opponent No.1 ran away from the place of occurrence.
3 Opponent No.3, Insurance Company, resisted the claim petition by filing written statement at Exh.32 and contended that the claim petition is false and not tenable.
4 The Tribunal, after taking into consideration the rival submissions and the material on record, in paragraphs 27 to 35 of the judgment, considered the injuries and disability of 90% on the basis of the medical report issued by Dr. Jwalit Sheth, Neuro-Surgeon, dated 20.2.1997 (Exh.36) and, thus, the injured minor became, virtually, incapacitated and had to live vegetative life, but, the Tribunal, by considering the fact that the minor is hailing from an agriculturist family and he could perform some of the agricultural work of supervising and keeping a watch over the fields, determined and assessed disability at 50% instead of 90%.
5 Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has, vehemently, challenged the reasoning and finding of the Tribunal on the above aspect of reducing disability of the minor from 90% to 50% without just and proper grounds. It is, therefore, submitted that, due to head injuries, the minor was rendered completely disabled and his life was reduced to animal existence and the findings of the Tribunal are contrary to the medical evidence in this regard and, to that extent, the amount of compensation deserves to be enhanced.
6 Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would contend that the findings of the Tribunal are based on appreciation of injuries narrated in the medical certificate which would reveal partial disability of different parts of functioning of brain and body as a whole and, therefore, determination and assessment of disability at 50% is just and reasonable and it cannot be said that the Tribunal has erred on the above aspect of disability.
7 However, learned counsel for the appellant has raised various other grounds, but, considering the overall facts and applicability of multiplier of 15 and award of interest @12% per annum, the determination and compensation awarded by the Tribunal does not require to be considered at length. I am of the considered view that the minor claimant had successfully brought evidence on record with regard to his disability. Medical report issued by Dr. Jwalit Sheth, Neuro-Surgeon, dated 20.2.1997 (Exh.36) reveals 90% disability, affecting various functions of the body as a whole. Therefore, only on the ground that the minor is hailing from an agriculturist family and is able to supervise the agricultural field work, reduction of above disability by 40% is not only unreasonable but contrary to the evidence of medical report on record and the award deserves to be set right.
8 Accordingly, while determining future economic/income loss, notional income is considered as Rs.15000/- per annum and the disability, for all purposes, of the body as a whole, is determined at 90% and the multiplier of 15 is applied, thus, the following amount would be the future economic loss.
Notional Income : Rs.15,000/- per annum Disability : 90% = 15,000 X90% =Rs.13,500/-
Multiplier : 15 = Rs.13,500/- x 15=Rs.2,02,500/-
Thus, Rs.2,02,500/- should be the just and proper compensation payable to the appellant under the head of "future economic loss". The Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,35,000/- under the head of "future economic loss" with interest and proportionate cost to the claimant which is now enhanced to Rs.2,02,500/-. The aforesaid additional compensation of Rs.67,500/- shall carry 9% interest per annum and proportionate cost from the date of claim petition till realization. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal towards other heads are not disturbed.
9. The appeal is allowed. The judgment and award dated 30th September 1997 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Vadodara, in M.A.C. Petition No.1220 of 1991 is modified to the aforesaid extent.
(ANANT S. DAVE, J.) (swamy) Top
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Mr vs Notice Served For

Court

High Court Of Gujarat

JudgementDate
21 June, 2012