Gujarat High Court
Ramabhai Kalabhai Sonala vs Gujarat State Road Transport ... on 21 April, 2014
Author: Harsha Devani
Bench: Harsha Devani
C/FA/2818/1995 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2818 of 1995
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI
================================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see
the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the
judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as
to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any
order made thereunder ?
5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
================================================================
RAMABHAI KALABHAI SONALA....Appellant(s)
Versus
GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION & 2....Defendant(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR MC BHATT, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR MP PRAJAPATI, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR RAJNI H MEHTA, ADVOCATE for the Defendant(s) No. 3
MRS VASAVDATTA BHATT, ADVOCATE for the Defendant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Defendant(s) No. 2 - 3
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI
Date : 21/04/2014
Page 1 of 7
C/FA/2818/1995 JUDGMENT
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. By this appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), the appellant - original claimant has called in question the judgement and award dated 17th July, 1991 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special), Ahmedabad (Rural) in M.A.C. Petition No.896 of 1985, whereby the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.22,500/- instead of Rs.70,000/- as claimed by the appellant.
2. The facts stated briefly are that the appellant was travelling in an S.T. bus bearing No.GRR 9937 which was going from Aslali to Ahmedabad on 23.07.1984. At that time, a tanker bearing No.GTD 5281 came from the direction of Ahmedabad and collided with the bus near Ghanshyam Park and Jyoti Transport. On account of the accident, the driver and the conductor of the bus as well as some of the passengers who were travelling in the bus, sustained injuries. The appellant herein also sustained injuries in connection with which, he filed a claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.70,000/- in respect of the injuries sustained by him.
3. The Tribunal after appreciating the evidence on record, assessed the income of the appellant at Rs.600/- per month and considering the permanent disability at 15% of the body as a whole, as determined by the Orthopaedic Surgeon, assessed the monthly loss of income at Rs.90/- per month and computed the annual loss of income at Rs.1,080/-. The Tribunal considered the age of the appellant to be 50 years and applied Page 2 of 7 C/FA/2818/1995 JUDGMENT a multiplier of 10 and accordingly, computed the future economic loss of the appellant at Rs.10,800/-. The Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering; Rs.2,000/- towards medicines, medicinal treatment; Rs.1,300/- towards diet, transportation; Rs.2,400/- towards actual loss of income for four months, and accordingly, awarded a total compensation of Rs.22,500/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition till realization thereof. The Tribunal ordered the opponent No.1 to pay 50% of the awarded amount and the opponents No. 2 and 3 to pay the remaining 50% amount to the appellant - claimant.
4. Mr. M. P. Prajapati, learned advocate for the appellant - claimant submitted that as against the claim of Rs.70,000/- made by the appellant, the Tribunal has awarded a meagre amount of Rs.22,500/-. It was submitted that the Tribunal had erred in applying a multiplier of 10, inasmuch as, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2006) 9 SCC 121, where the age of a victim is 46 to 50 years, a multiplier of 13 is required to be applied. It was submitted that on account of the injuries sustained by him, movement of knee and ankle of the appellant was restricted and there was also loss of power of thigh. Under the circumstances, the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation under loss of amenities also. It was submitted that the appellant had undergone three operations and was required to be hospitalized for a period of seven days and hence, the compensation of Rs.5,000/- under the head of pain, shock and suffering is also on the lower side. It was, accordingly, Page 3 of 7 C/FA/2818/1995 JUDGMENT submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is required to be enhanced.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Sunil Parikh, learned advocate for the respondent No.3 - Insurance Company submitted that as against the claim of the appellant that he was earning Rs.15/- per day, the Tribunal instead of considering his income at Rs.450/- per month, has considered the same at Rs.600/- and as such, it cannot be said that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. He, however, fairly agreed that in terms of the decision in the case of Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (supra), a multiplier of 13 ought to have been applied.
6. Mrs. Vasavadatta Bhatt, learned advocate for the respondent No.1 - Corporation has reiterated the submissions advanced by the learned advocate for the respondent No.3 - Insurance Company.
7. Despite service of notice, there is no appearance on behalf of the respondent No.4.
8. In the backdrop of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties, it is apparent that the controversy involved in the present appeal lies in a very narrow compass as to whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal can be said to be a just compensation.
9. As can be seen from the impugned award, the Tribunal has considered monthly income of the appellant at Rs.600/- and has considered the disability at 15% in terms of the Page 4 of 7 C/FA/2818/1995 JUDGMENT medical certificate produced by the appellant. The Tribunal has, accordingly, computed the monthly loss of income at Rs.90/- and the annual loss of income at Rs.1080/-. However, the Tribunal has applied a multiplier of 10 despite the fact that it has considered the age of the appellant to be 50 years. The Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (supra) has held that in case the age of the victim is between 46 to 50 years, a multiplier of 13 is required to be applied. Under the circumstances, by applying a multiplier of 13, the future economic loss would come to Rs.14,040/-.
10. A perusal of the evidence on record reveals that one Dr. Prakash Vekaria, Orthopaedic Surgeon, has been examined at Exhibit-121. He has deposed that in the medical certificate, there was no reference to any fracture. However, he had found that there was grafted skin 6 x 2 inch size front of middle tibia and there was terminal restriction of knee and ankle movement and 20% loss of power of thigh. The Tribunal has found that there was no reason to disbelieve the version of Orthopaedic Surgeon and has accepted a permanent residual disability at 15% of the body as a whole. Having regard to the fact that there was terminal restriction of knee and ankle, it cannot be gainsaid that the appellant would have to suffer discomfort throughout his life because of the injuries sustained by him, under the circumstances the Tribunal ought to have awarded some amount of compensation towards loss of amenities. The court, therefore, deems it appropriate to award compensation of Rs.5,000/- under the head of loss of amenities. Insofar as the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the other heads is concerned, the same Page 5 of 7 C/FA/2818/1995 JUDGMENT appears to be just and proper and hence the court does not deem it fit to interfere with the same.
11. In the light of the above discussion, the appellant would be entitled to the following compensation:
Monthly income = Rs.600/-
Monthly loss of income = Rs.600/- x 15%
= Rs.90/- per month
Annual loss of income = Rs.90 x 12 = Rs.1,080/-
Future economic loss = Rs.1,080/- x 13
= Rs.14,040/-
Pain, shock and suffering = Rs. 5,000/-
Medicines and medicinal
treatment = Rs.3,000/-
Diet and Transportation = Rs.1,300/-
Actual loss of income = Rs.2,400/-
Total Compensation = Rs.30,740/-
The Tribunal has awarded Rs.22,500/-. Hence, the appellant would be entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.8,240/-.
12. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal partly succeeds and is, accordingly, allowed to the following extent :
The appellant shall be entitled to recover an additional compensation of Rs.8,240/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization thereof, from all the respondents jointly and severally. The respondent No.1 shall pay 50% of the enhanced Page 6 of 7 C/FA/2818/1995 JUDGMENT amount of compensation and the respondents No.2 and 3 shall be liable to pay remaining 50% of the enhanced amount of compensation.
13. The Registry shall forthwith send back the record and proceedings of the case.
(HARSHA DEVANI, J.) parmar* Page 7 of 7