Gujarat High Court
Vikramsinh Punjsinh Padhiyar vs Natvarsinh Dalotsinh Makwana on 10 September, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3328/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3328 of 2010
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed No
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy No
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question No
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
VIKRAMSINH PUNJSINH PADHIYAR
Versus
NATVARSINH DALOTSINH MAKWANA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR R.K.MANSURI(3205) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR. ALKESH N SHAH(3749) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,4,5
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 10/09/2024
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present First Appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is preferred by the appellant - claimant, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Page 1 of 21 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Thu Sep 19 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 21 02:56:21 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3328/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2024 undefined judgment and award dated 03.05.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Sabarkantha at Himatnagar in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.1122 of 2006, by which the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.1,57,430/- with 6% per annum interest to the claimant/s, holding opponent Nos.2 to 5 liable, jointly and severally and by exonerating the respondent No.3 from its liability. Respondent No.2 and 5 were ordered to pay the awarded amount to the ratio of 50:50.
2. Brief facts of the case as per the case of the appellant are as under:
2.1 The accident is occurred on 27.07.2006 at about 16.45 o'clock in turning on Chankarni-Khed Road, in the sim of village Vasna. The applicant was going towards Himatnagar from Chandarni by sitting as pillion rider on opponent No.4's-his friend's motorcycle No.GJ-9-R-9610 and when they were passing in turning on Chandarni-
Khed road in the sim of village Vasna at that time opponent No.1-driver of involved jeep No.GJ-9-V-7040 came from opposite side by driving his jeep in rash and negligent manner and with excessive speed and dashed Page 2 of 21 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Thu Sep 19 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 21 02:56:21 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3328/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2024 undefined to the involved motorcycle as a result of which applicant fall down and sustained injuries.
2.2 After considering the documentary as well as oral evidence and submissions made at the bar, the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition by awarding compensation as noted above.
2.3 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the present appeal is preferred by the claimant for enhancement.
3. Learned advocate for the appellant - claimant has submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in not properly calculating the amount of compensation. It is submitted that amount awarded is on lower side as the Tribunal has not properly considered the various aspects; like income of the injured, injuries, prospective income, special diet, transportation and attendant charges, pain, shock and suffering, actual loss, etc. It is submitted that the Tribunal has committed error in considering the monthly income of the injured Rs.2,000/-, which should be Rs.2,500/- considering the fact that he Page 3 of 21 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Thu Sep 19 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 21 02:56:21 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3328/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2024 undefined was doing colour work and polish work and also labour work, and taking into account the minimum wages prevailed in the relevant time. Accordingly, actual loss of income may be increased considering the income of the injured. It is submitted that considering decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited versus Pranay Shethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, as well as taking into account the age of the injured, addition to the extent of 40% may be granted in monthly income of the injured. Furthermore, it is submitted that the Tribunal has rightly considered the disability, which is not in dispute in the present case. Furthermore, the multiplier should be 16 considering the various decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and taking into account the age of the claimant. It is submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error by not properly considering the compensation under the head of pain, shock and suffering, which should be Rs.30,000/-, instead of Rs.15,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, looking to the injuries sustained by the claimant and considering the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of : (i) Pranay Shethi (supra) and (ii) Govind Yadav vs. New India Insurance Company Page 4 of 21 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Thu Sep 19 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 21 02:56:21 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3328/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2024 undefined Limited reported in (2011) 10 SCC 683. It is submitted that the Tribunal has committed error in not properly considering the amount towards special diet, transportation and attendant charges, which should be Rs.10,000/- instated of Rs.5,000/- considering the time of treatment taken by the injured. It is submitted that the driver of jeep was holding valid licence at the time of accident. Hence, the Tribunal has committed error by exonerating the opponent No.3 - insurance company by taking hyper-technical view. It is submitted that the Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation under different heads, except the above raised. It is submitted that the appropriate enhancement be granted by modifying the award impugned. It is submitted that the appeal may be allowed.
4. Per contra, learned advocate for respondent No.3 - insurance company has submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is just and proper. It is submitted that the Tribunal has rightly considered the income of the injured. Furthermore, it is submitted that the Tribunal has rightly considered the compensation towards pain, shock and suffering, Page 5 of 21 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Thu Sep 19 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 21 02:56:21 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3328/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2024 undefined prospective income. It is submitted that the Tribunal has rightly awarded amount towards special diet, attendant charges, and attendant charges. It is also submitted that the Tribunal has rightly considered the liability aspect. It is also submitted that no interference is required in the impugned award. However, from the submissions made by learned advocate for the appellant that the Tribunal has committed certain errors, on this aspect, learned advocate for the respondent/s has submitted that if this Court feels that there is some error in calculation of the amount in view of settled position of law, in awarding compensation by the Tribunal, then the Court may pass appropriate order by considering the submissions made by him/her, in the interest of justice.
5. It is noteworthy to mention that the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which gives paramount importance to the concept of 'just and fair' compensation. It is a beneficial legislation which has been framed with the object of providing relief to the victims or their families. Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act deals with the concept of 'just compensation' which ought to be determined on the foundation of fairness, reasonableness Page 6 of 21 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Thu Sep 19 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 21 02:56:21 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3328/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2024 undefined and equitability. Although such determination can never be arithmetically exact or perfect, an endeavor should be made by the Court to award just and fair compensation irrespective of the amount claimed by the claimant/s. 6.1 I have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and considered the submissions made by the rival parties. I have perused the record and proceedings of the Tribunal. I have gone through the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. It is noted that the claimant has by and large claimed enhancement towards income of the injured, injuries, prospective income, special diet, transportation and attendant charges, pain, shock and suffering, actual loss, etc. At the outset, I have considering the decision cited at the bar by learned advocate for the appellant. The judgments cited at the bar by learned advocate for the appellant is helpful to the facts of the present case. 6.2 It transpires that the Tribunal has considered the monthly income of the injured Rs.2,000/-, which should be Rs.2,500/- considering the fact that he was doing colour work and polish work and also labour work, and Page 7 of 21 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Thu Sep 19 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 21 02:56:21 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3328/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2024 undefined taking into account the minimum wages prevailed in the relevant time. Furthermore, considering various above- mentioned judgments of the Hon'ble Apex and taking into account the age of the claimant at the time of accident, i.e., 35 years, addition to the extent of 40% is required to be granted in the monthly income. Therefore, it would come to Rs.3,500/- towards prospective income. Furthermore, Considering the various decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, and taking into account the age of the injured at the time of accident i.e. 35 years at the time of accident, multiplier of 16 is required to be granted. It is required to take note of the fact that learned advocate for the appellant has not disputed disability considered by the Tribunal. Otherwise also, the Tribunal has rightly considered those aspects. Therefore, Rs.3,500/- x 25% x 12 (monthly) x 16 (multiplier) would come to Rs.1,68,000/- which would be the future loss of income of the claimant.
6.3 Furthermore, actual loss of income should be Rs.30,000/-, instead of Rs.24,000/- considering the monthly income Rs.2,500/- of the claimant for 12 months. Furthermore, the Tribunal has erred in awarding Page 8 of 21 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Thu Sep 19 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 21 02:56:21 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3328/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2024 undefined Rs.15,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering, which should be Rs.30,000/- considering the injuries and treatment as well as taking into account various decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court. Furthermore, the Tribunal has erred in awarding Rs.5,000/- only towards special diet, attendant and transportation charges, which should be Rs.10,000/- considering the injuries and period of hospitalization of the claimant, as well as treatment taken by the injured. Furthermore, under the other heads, the amount awarded by the Tribunal are not disputed by the claimant in the present case. Otherwise also, the Tribunal has rightly considered the amount of compensation under other heads.
6.4 Thus, the appellant - claimant is entitled to get the following final amount as compensation :
Particulars Amount (Rs.)
Future loss of income 1,68,000/-
Actual loss of income 30,000/-
Pain, shock and suffering 30,000/-
Medical expenses 11,430/-
Page 9 of 21
Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Thu Sep 19 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 21 02:56:21 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3328/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2024
undefined
Special diet, transportation, 10,000/-
attendant charges
Total... 2,49,430/-
Less : Amount which is already 1,57,430/-
awarded
Additional amount which is awarded 92,000/-
6.5 It is fruitful to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan versus Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in AIR 2017 SC 3668, more particularly Paras : 42, 43, 45 and 46 are relevant, which are as under:
"42. In Nagashetty (AIR 2001 SC 3356) (supra), the vehicle involved was a tractor which was used for carrying goods. The goods were carried in a trailer attached to it. It was held that if a driver was holding an effective licence to drive a tractor, he could validly drive the tractor attached to a trailer. The contention that it was a transport vehicle, as the tractor was attached to a trailer and as such the driver was not holding a valid licence, was rejected. This Court has laid down thus:
"9. Relying on these definitions, Mr. S.C. Sharda Page 10 of 21 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Thu Sep 19 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 21 02:56:21 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3328/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2024 undefined submitted that admittedly the trailer was filled with stones. He submitted that once a trailer was attached to the tractor the tractor became a transport vehicle as it was used for carriage of goods. He submitted that Section 10(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act provides for grant of licences to drive specific types of vehicles. He submitted that the driver only had a licence to drive a tractor. He submitted that the driver did not have a licence to drive a transport vehicle. He submitted that therefore it could not be said that the driver had an effective and valid driving licence to drive a goods carriage or a transport vehicle. He submitted that thus the driver did not have a valid driving licence to drive the type of vehicle he was driving. He submitted that as the driver did not have a valid driving licence to drive a transport vehicle, the Insurance Co. could not be made liable. He submitted that the High Court was right in so holding.
10.We are unable to accept the submissions of Mr. S.C. Sharda. It is an admitted fact that the driver had a valid and effective licence to drive a tractor. Undoubtedly Under Section 10, a licence is granted to drive specific categories of motor vehicles. The Page 11 of 21 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Thu Sep 19 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 21 02:56:21 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3328/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2024 undefined question is whether merely because a trailer was attached to the tractor and the tractor was used for carrying goods, the licence to drive a tractor becomes ineffective. If the argument of Mr. S.C. Sharda is to be accepted, then every time an owner of a private car, who has a licence to drive a light motor vehicle, attaches a roof carrier to his car or a trailer to his car and carries goods thereon, the light motor vehicle would become a transport vehicle and the owner would be deemed to have no licence to drive that vehicle. It would lead to absurd results. Merely because a trailer is added either to a tractor or to a motor vehicle by itself does not make that tractor or motor vehicle a transport vehicle. The tractor or motor vehicle remains a tractor or motor vehicle. If a person has a valid driving licence to drive a tractor or a motor vehicle, he continues to have a valid licence to drive that tractor or motor vehicle even if a trailer is attached to it and some goods are carried in it. In other words, a person having a valid driving licence to drive a particular category of vehicle does not become disabled to drive that vehicle merely because a trailer is added to that vehicle.
11.In this case, we find that the Insurance Company Page 12 of 21 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Thu Sep 19 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 21 02:56:21 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3328/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2024 undefined when issuing the insurance policy, had also so understood. The insurance policy has been issued for a tractor. In this insurance policy, an additional premium of Rs.12 has been taken for a trailer. Therefore the insurance policy covers not just the tractor but also a trailer attached to the tractor. The insurance policy provides as follows for the "persons or classes of persons entitled to drive": 'Persons or classes of persons entitled to drive - Any person including insured provided that the person driving holds an effective driving licence at the time of the accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a licence:Provided also that the person holding an effective learner's licence may also drive the vehicle when not used for the transport of goods at the time of the accident and that such a person satisfies the requirements of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, limitations as to use.'
12. The policy is for a tractor. The "effective driving licence" is thus for a tractor. The restriction on a learner driving the tractor when used for transporting goods shows that the policy itself contemplates that the tractor could be used for Page 13 of 21 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Thu Sep 19 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 21 02:56:21 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3328/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2024 undefined carriage of goods. The tractor by itself could not carry goods. The goods would be carried in a trailer attached to it. That is why the extra premium for a trailer. The restriction placed on a person holding a learner's licence i.e. not to drive when goods are being carried is not there for a permanent licence- holder. Thus a permanent licence-holder having an effective/valid licence to drive a tractor can drive even when the tractor is used for carrying goods. When the policy itself so permits, the High Court was wrong in coming to the conclusion that a person having a valid driving licence to drive a tractor would become disqualified to drive the tractor if a trailer was attached to it."
43. Section 10(2) (a) to (j) lays down the classes of vehicles to be driven not a specific kind of motor vehicles in that class. If a vehicle falls into any of the categories, a licence holder holding licence to drive the class of vehicle can drive all vehicles of that particular class. No separate endorsement is to be obtained nor provided, if the vehicle falls in any of the particular classes of section 10(2). This Court has rightly observed in Nagashetty (AIR 2001 SC 3356)(supra) that in case submission to the contrary is accepted, then every time an owner of a private car, who has a licence to drive a light motor Page 14 of 21 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Thu Sep 19 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 21 02:56:21 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3328/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2024 undefined vehicle, attaches a roof carrier to his car or a trailer to his car and carries goods thereon, the light motor vehicle would become a transport vehicle and the owner would be deemed to have no licence to drive that vehicle. It would lead to absurd results. Merely because a trailer is added either to a tractor or to a motor vehicle it by itself does not mean that driver ceased to have valid driving licence. In our considered opinion, even if such a vehicle is treated as transport vehicle of the light motor vehicle class, legal position would not change and driver would still have a valid driving licence to drive transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class, whether it is a transport vehicle or a private car/tractor attached with trolley or used for carrying goods in the form of transport vehicle. The ultimate conclusion in Nagashetty (AIR 2001 SC 3356) (supra) is correct, however, for the reasons as explained by us.
45. Transport vehicle has been defined in section 2(47) of the Act, to mean a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle. Public service vehicle has been defined in section 2(35) to mean any motor vehicle used or adapted to be used for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward and includes a maxicab, a motor cab, contract carriage, and stage carriage. Goods carriage which is also a transport Page 15 of 21 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Thu Sep 19 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 21 02:56:21 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3328/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2024 undefined vehicle is defined in section 2(14) to mean a motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use solely for the carriage of goods, or any motor vehicle not so constructed or adapted when used for the carriage of goods. It was rightly submitted that a person holding licence to drive light motor vehicle registered for private use, who is driving a similar vehicle which is registered or insured, for the purpose of carrying passengers for hire or reward, would not require an endorsement as to drive a transport vehicle, as the same is not contemplated by the provisions of the Act. It was also rightly contended that there are several vehicles which can be used for private use as well as for carrying passengers for hire or reward. When a driver is authorised to drive a vehicle, he can drive it irrespective of the fact whether it is used for a private purpose or for purpose of hire or reward or for carrying the goods in the said vehicle. It is what is intended by the provision of the Act, and the Amendment Act 54/1994.
46. Section 10 of the Act requires a driver to hold a licence with respect to the class of vehicles and not with respect to the type of vehicles. In one class of vehicles, there may be different kinds of vehicles. If they fall in the same class of vehicles, no separate endorsement is required to drive such vehicles. As light motor vehicle includes transport vehicle also, a holder of light motor vehicle Page 16 of 21 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Thu Sep 19 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 21 02:56:21 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3328/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2024 undefined licence can drive all the vehicles of the class including transport vehicles. It was pre-amended position as well the post-amended position of Form 4 as amended on 28.3.2001. Any other interpretation would be repugnant to the definition of "light motor vehicle" in section 2(21) and the provisions of section 10(2)(d), Rule 8 of the Rules of 1989, other provisions and also the forms which are in tune with the provisions. Even otherwise the forms never intended to exclude transport vehicles from the category of 'light motor vehicles' and for light motor vehicle, the validity period of such licence hold good and apply for the transport vehicle of such class also and the expression in Section 10(2)(e) of the Act 'Transport Vehicle' would include medium goods vehicle, medium passenger motor vehicle, heavy goods vehicle, heavy passenger motor vehicle which earlier found place in section 10(2)(e) to (h) and our conclusion is fortified by the syllabus and rules which we have discussed. Thus we answer the questions which are referred to us thus:
(i) 'Light motor vehicle' as defined in section 2(21) of the Act would include a transport vehicle as per the weight prescribed in section 2(21) read with section 2(15) and 2(48). Such transport vehicles are not excluded from the definition of the light motor vehicle by virtue of Amendment Act No.54/1994.
Page 17 of 21 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Thu Sep 19 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 21 02:56:21 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3328/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2024 undefined
(ii) A transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which does not exceed 7500 kg. would be a light motor vehicle and also motor car or tractor or a road roller, 'unladen weight' of which does not exceed 7500 kg. and holder of a driving licence to drive class of "light motor vehicle" as provided in section 10(2)(d) is competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg. or a motor car or tractor or road-roller, the "unladen weight" of which does not exceed 7500 kg. That is to say, no separate endorsement on the licence is required to drive a transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class as enumerated above. A licence issued under section 10(2)(d) continues to be valid after Amendment Act 54/1994 and 28.3.2001 in the form.
(iii) The effect of the amendment made by virtue of Act No.54/1994 w.e.f. 14.11.1994 while substituting clauses (e) to (h) of section 10(2) which contained "medium goods vehicle" in section 10(2)(e), medium passenger motor vehicle in section 10(2)(f), heavy goods vehicle in section 10(2)(g) and "heavy passenger motor vehicle" in section 10(2)(h) with expression 'transport vehicle' as substituted in section 10(2)(e) related only to the aforesaid substituted classes only. It does not exclude transport vehicle, from the purview of section 10(2)(d) and section 2(41) of the Act i.e. Page 18 of 21 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Thu Sep 19 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 21 02:56:21 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3328/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2024 undefined light motor vehicle.
(iv) The effect of amendment of Form 4 by insertion of "transport vehicle" is related only to the categories which were substituted in the year 1994 and the procedure to obtain driving licence for transport vehicle of class of "light motor vehicle" continues to be the same as it was and has not been changed and there is no requirement to obtain separate endorsement to drive transport vehicle, and if a driver is holding licence to drive light motor vehicle, he can drive transport vehicle of such class without any endorsement to that effect."
6.6 In view of this decision, it transpires that the Tribunal has erred in exonerating the respondent No.3 insurance company of Jeep from its liability on the ground of invalid driving licence of driver of jeep and, therefore, I am of the view that all the respondents are jointly and severally liability to pay the entire amount of compensation including the enhanced amount and the Tribunal has found negligent of both the vehicles liable to the extent 50% each.
7. Therefore, I hold that the claimant/s are entitled to get the total amount of compensation of Rs.2,49,430/- Page 19 of 21 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Thu Sep 19 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 21 02:56:21 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3328/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2024 undefined with 9% p.a. interest from the date of filing the claim petition till its realisation, which would meet the ends of justice. Rest of the direction(s) of the Tribunal shall remain same. The Tribunal has already awarded Rs.1,57,430/- and, therefore, remaining amount of Rs.92,000/- would be the enhanced amount of compensation payable to the claimant/s.
8. For the reasons recorded above, the following order is passed.
8.1 The present appeal is partly allowed against all the opponents.
8.2 The impugned judgment and award dated 03.05.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Sabarkantha at Himatnagar in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.1122 of 2006 is modified to the aforesaid extent.
8.3 The respondents - Insurance Companies are directed to deposit the entire awarded amount including the enhanced amount of Rs.92,000/- with 9% p.a. interest Page 20 of 21 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Thu Sep 19 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 21 02:56:21 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3328/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2024 undefined from the date of claim petition till its realisation before the concerned Tribunal, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
8.4 The Tribunal shall disburse the entire awarded amount lying in the FDR and/or with the Tribunal, with accrued interest thereon, if any, to the claimant/s, by account payee cheque / NEFT / RTGS, after proper verification and after following due procedure. 8.5 While making the payment, the Tribunal shall deduct the courts fees, if not paid, in accordance with rules/law.
8.6 Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J) DIWAKAR SHUKLA Page 21 of 21 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Thu Sep 19 2024 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 21 02:56:21 IST 2024