Back
2009 Supreme(Guj) 163
2009 (3) GCD 2619 (Guj)
Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.K. Rathod
Dhirajlal Shamjibhai & Ors.
Versus
Pravinsinh Patubha Chudasama & Anr.
First Appeal No. 1226 of 1997—Decided on 24/03/2009
Appearance :
Mr. Rajni H. Mehta, for the Appellants No. 1 - 3.
Mr. D.C. Sejpal, for the Defendant No. 1.
None, for the Defendant No. 2.
Point in Issue :
Whether in the facts of the case award of Rs. 6,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 15% is reasonably justified?
Headnote:Head Note :
(a) Motor accident — Compensation — Quantum — Sufficiency of — In the case where victim survived with all disabilities standard for consideration of quantum would be different than where victim dies — In the facts of this case considering the injuries suffered by claimant and operations undergone by him amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- as compensation granted by Tribunal can not be considered on higher side — Same is proper and reasonable.
Held :
When victim of a vehicular accident has succumbed to injuries and has expired, then, there should be different standards for considering quantum of compensation and when victim of vehicular accident has survived with all disabilities earned by him because of such accident, standards for considering quantum in such case should be different than the case wherein victim has died because of accident. Therefore, in view of facts of this case as considered by claims tribunal, considering injuries suffered by claimant and also considering operations undergone by claimant and prolonged treatment of claimant and permanent disability suffered by claimant as considered by claims tribunal, according to my opinion, amount awarded by claims Tribunal cannot be considered on higher side in any manner and same is quite just, proper and reasonable. [Para 8]
Head Note :
(b) Motor accident — Compensation — Award of interest at the rate of 15% per annum — Sustainability — Held, rate of interest is higher — When normally 12% per annum interest is available even if one invests any amount in nationalised bank — Court modified the award to that extent and allowed interest of 12% on the amount of compensation.
Held :
Claims Tribunal directed that the amount of Rs. 600000.00 be paid by opponents jointly and severally with 15 per cent interest with proportionate costs while clarifying that if the amount is deposited within six months, then, opponents are entitled to pay interest at the rate of 12 per cent. Normally, at that time, 12 per cent interest was available even if he invest any amount in scheduled or nationalized bank, therefore, award of rate of interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum is on higher side and same is required to be modified by directing appellant to pay interest only at 12 per cent per annum and claims Tribunal has committed an error in awarding interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum. Therefore, only on the issue of award of interest, impugned award is required to be modified.
[Para 9]
Law Laid Down :
When victim of vehicular accident survives with all disabilities earned by him because of accident standards for considering quantum of compensation is different than where victim died?
H.K. Rathod, J.—Heard learned Advocate Mr. Sunil B. Parikh for learned Advocate Mr. Rajni H. Mehta for appellants - owner and insurance Company and learned Advocate Mr. Tulsi R. Savani for respondent original claimant Pravinsinh Patubha Chudasama.
2. By filing this appeal, appellants are challenging the award made by motor accident claims Tribunal at Bhavnagar in Claim Petition No. 492 of 1994 dated 6th September, 1996 wherein claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 6,00,000.00 in favour of respondent claimant with interest thereon at the rate of 15 per cent per annum and proportionate costs.
3. Learned Advocate Mr. Parikh for appellants raised contention that the claims Tribunal has committed gross error in coming to conclusion that the accident has taken place due to jeep No. GUQ-9382. He also submitted that the claims Tribunal has not properly appreciated the fact that the injured Luna Driver himself was negligent and accident was caused due to his own negligence. He submitted that the jeep driver was driving his jeep on the absolute correct side and claims Tribunal has yet given contrary finding to the effect that the jeep driver was absolutely on wrong side of road. He submitted that the claims Tribunal has committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the accident was caused to the sole negligence on the part of jeep driver. He submitted that the claims Tribunal has not properly appreciated facts on record, not properly applied mind and awarded higher amount of compensation. He submitted that the award of interest made by claims Tribunal is also on higher side and not sustainable in law and it is liable to be set aside as penal rate of interest.
4. On the other hand, learned Advocate Mr. Savani for respondents claimants made submissions while supporting impugned award. He submitted that the claims Tribunal has rightly passed award and has rightly examined matter while considering question of negligence and just and proper compensation has been awarded by claims tribunal. He submitted that claimant had received 70% disability and for 11 times, he was operated and considering all these aspects, award made by claims Tribunal is quite just, reasonable and proper requiring no interference of this court. He also submitted that the award of interest is also just and proper and would not require any interference.
5. I have considered submissions made by learned advocates for parties. I have also perused impugned award made by claims tribunal. Looking to the facts as emerging from record, claimant is having one cabin in Jail Ground, Bhavnagar wherein he is doing the business of grains, kirana and cold drinks and pan bidi etc. His monthly income was about Rs. 3000.00. He is having wife, three daughters and one son. His whole family was depending on his income. On the day of incident 20.8.1994, at about 5.30 hours of the evening, he had gone on his Luna from his Cabin near to ST Bus Stand for filling petrol in Luna and in view of Raksha Bandhan festival coming on next day, he had gone in village on Luna for making purchase and he was going towards Ganga Jalia lake from ST Bus Stand and when he reached near Panwadi Chowk near Ayurvedik Hospital and Hospital while driving his Luna carefully slowly on its correct side when Sadikbhai was sitting on Luna as pillion rider, at that time, one jeep came from opposite side bearing No. GUQ 382 driven by driver of it rashly negligently on wrong side and dashed with Luna of claimant. Consequently, Sadikbhai and claimant bodh had thrown on road and claimant had received serious injury and were admitted in Sir T. Hospital wherein claimant had received serious injury. He had suffered fracture in both leg and had to undergone treatment for long time and had incurred huge expenditure for treatment and now due to that, business which he had been doing had been stopped completely and has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 70 per cent and he is unable to do his day to d
