Home   |   About us   |   Contact us   |   Request Callback  
 
   
ALREADY A MEMBER ?
Username
Password

Translate

This Page To:

 
JIVABHAI RUPABHAI BHOI V/S RATANSINH PRATAPSINH CHARPOR & OTHERS, decided on Monday, May 1, 2017.
[ In the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, First Appeal No. 1064 of 2017. ] 01/05/2017
Judge(s) : R.P. DHOLARIA
Advocate(s) : Vaibhav N. Sheth. R3, Palak H. Thakkar.
Judgment Full Text : Existing LawyerServices Members, kindly login above.

Non Members, Enter your email address:- and , to request this judgment.

Alternatively, you may send a request by email to info@lawyerservices.in for the Full Text of this Judgment (chargeable).

LawyerServices Facebook Page






#LawyerServices #bestlegalsoftware #legalsoftware #judgment #caselaw

  "2017 (1) Andhwr 741"  ==   ""  







    Oral:1. This is an appeal at the instance of appellant-injured claimant being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 22/03/2016 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary) Sabarkantha in MACP No.876 of 2015 (old MACP No.726 of 2008) whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 12 400/-.2. By way of preferring this appeal the appellant is seeking enhancement of the compensation.3. The injured claimant by way of present appeal inter alia contended that though he sustained 7% permanent disability of body as a whole and he suffered a lot and his injury over the lower limb was very severe which would remain for ever the learned Tribunal considering that the injured claimant was government servant has not awarded the amount of compensation for future loss of income on that count and the learned Tribunal failed to compensate on the other heads like loss of amenities of life and enjoyment as well as on other such heads available on such claim petition and had only awarded Rs. 12 400/- which is even otherwise also less then Rs. 25 000/- as envisaged under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988. Raising such other contentions the appellant-original claimant has contended that the amount of compensation may be suitably enhanced so that it may become just compensation.4. As Mr. Palak Thakkar learned advocate for the Insurance Company is on record and only aforesaid question is involved at the request of learned advocates for both the parties this matter is taken up today for final hearing.5. Mr. Vaibhav Sheth learned advocate for the appellant claimant has pointed out that at the time of accident the claimant sustained amputation of right toe as well as fracture on 2nd 3rd and 5th metatarsal along with loss of tip of bone.6. Precisely as per argument of Mr. Vaibhav Sheth learned advocate for the appellant the entire right leg is damaged due to the accident and due to which movement of right ankle is also restricted and due to amputation as well as fracture over the fingers of the right leg disability sustained by the claimant would last till his last breath and he would be suffering for entire life however the learned Tribunal has not considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.7. On the other hand Mr. Palak Thakkar learned advocate has argued that learned Tribunal has awarded just compensation and there appears no decrease in the income as service of the claimant is continued as government servant and therefore no enhancement is required to be granted as such.8. Taking into consideration rival submissions as well as impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal it is clearly revealing that the award passed by the learned Tribunal is not sustainable at law as the award failed to comply with the minimum requirement of law envisaged under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 in the facts and circumstances of such case.9. Further taking into consideration the evidence on record more particularly the injury certificate dated 20/08/2015 issued by Dr. Nilesh Acharya orthopaedic surgeon Himmatnagar the arguments advanced by Mr. Vaibhav Sheth learned advocate is getting strengthen wherein also said doctor has noted aforesaid injury amputation as well as fracture over the leg.10. In view of the aforesaid factual scenario this Court is not inclined to enter into detail calculation however taking into consideration facts of the case lump sum compensation of Rs. 65 000/- inclusive of heads like pain shock and suffering medical expenses actual loss of income loss of enjoyment as well as other heads available in such compensation cases appears to be just and proper.11. For the reasons recorded above the present appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and award dated 22/03/2016 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary) in MACP No.876 of 2015 awarding compensation of Rs. 12 400/- is enhanced to Rs. 65 000/- with running interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till realization. Difference amount of compensation be deposited within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order and upon deposit of such amount the learned Tribunal shall disburse the said amount in terms of the award after due verification the to injured claimant. Direct service is permitted.