Gujarat High Court
New vs Ramesh on 22 November, 2011
Author: Ks Jhaveri
Bench: Ks Jhaveri
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
FA/3712/1996 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST
APPEAL No. 3712 of 1996
=========================================
NEW
INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD - Appellant(s)
Versus
RAMESH
LALJIBHAI VANAND & 4 - Defendant(s)
=========================================
Appearance
:
MR BH
BHAGAT for
Appellant(s) : 1,(MR PV NANAVATI) for Appellant(s) : 1,MR VIBHUTI
NANAVATI for Appellant(s) : 1,
MR BN RAVAL for Defendant(s) :
1,
MR MURALI N DEVNANI for Defendant(s) : 1,
NOTICE SERVED for
Defendant(s) : 2,
MR YOGESH S LAKHANI for Defendant(s) :
3,
DELETED for Defendant(s) : 4,
SERVED BY AFFIX.(N) for
Defendant(s) : 5,
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 22/11/2011
ORAL
ORDER
1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and award passed in Motor Accident Claims Petition No.78/1987 before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhavnagar.
2. Facts, in brief leading to filing this petition can be culled out as under:
The incident occurred on 03.12.1986 at about 9:45 p.m. near Gadhechi Vadla near Old Wireless Station of Railway Department, Bhavnagar - Ahmedabad State Highway in Bhavnagar City. Respondent No.1 (original applicant) was the pillion rider on the Motor Cycle No.7091, when they reached near the scene of offense, one Flat Motor Car No.MAS 8398 was coming from the opposite direction with excessive and uncontrollable speed and that also in rash and negligent manner. Opponent No.1 was driving the said scooter. He dashed his scooter with the motor cycle. As a result thereof, both the persons sitting on the motor cycle thrown away on the road and sustained serious injuries. Thereafter, both of them were admitted in the hospital at Bhavnagar. Respondent No.1 sustained serious injuries and therefore, he was transferred to Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad, where he was admitted for 8 months and 15 days. Due to that accident there was effect of paralysis right from the neck to the entire body and not able to do any work till the order was passed by the tribunal. Prior to this, he was serving as a clerk in Sales Tax Department. He is bed ridden and due to these injuries and 100% disability of the body, he was dismissed from service. According to respondent No.1, he sustained serious damages and a great loss and therefore, he had filed petition for claiming compensation for Rs.5,00,000/-.
3. The appellant prefers this appeal only to the extent of Rs.2,50,000/- on the following grounds:
The judgment and order are erroneous, wrong and illegal both on facts as well as in law.
The learned Tribunal did not appreciate the facts involved in the case and did not consider the submissions made on behalf of the appellant.
The learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the injured himself was negligent, if at all he was hit by the alleged vehicle No. MAS 8398.
The award of compensation is for an amount much in excess of the Second Scheduled Compensation under Section163A of the MV Act, 1988, as inserted by Act 54 of 1994.
The learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the injured on a very higher side.
The learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the insured has committed breach of specified conditions of Insurance Policy.
The learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased without any supporting evidence.
The learned Tribunal has wrongly applied higher multiplier to the incorrectly assessed income.
4. On the above-mentioned grounds, the appellants have prayed that;
The impugned judgment and order dtd. 16.04.1996 made and passed in MACP No.78 of 1987 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad be quashed and set aside and this appeal be allowed and in the interest of justice, the MACP may be dismissed with cost;
Pass such other and further order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit.
5. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in arriving at Rs.4,32,000/- by applying multiplier of 12 years for future economic loss due to disability, Rs.25,000/- for medical expenses, transportation charges, special diet, attendance charges and other misc. expenses and Rs.50,000/- for loss of enjoyment and amenities of life, total of which comes to Rs.5,32,000/-. However, as the injured respondent (original petitioner) had claimed for only Rs.5,00,000/-, the award was restricted to that extent.
6. Total 17 documents at page 8 were referred to by the learned tribunal in the order. Looking to the evidence on record and total 17 documents referred at page 9 of the order passed by the tribunal, and the calculation of amount of compensation, the tribunal is just and proper in arriving at an award of Rs.5,00,000/-.
7. In my view no interference is called for and appeal deserves dismissal and it is dismissed.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) dks Top