JUDGMENT

1. This is first appeal is preferred by the claimant for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Kheda at Nadiad in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 2448 of 1998 vide judgment and award dated 07.01.2009.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are as under:

2.1 On the day of incident minor appellant was riding a bicycle. At that time, a tractor-trailer came in a rash and negligent manner and had dashed the bicycle of the appellant. Due to which he had fallen down and had sustained serious injuries.

2.2 Then after, the appellant had filed a petition under Section 166 of M.V. Act before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.) at Nadiad being MACP No. 2448 of 1998 for claiming Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation against the driver of the said tractortrailer.

3. Heard the learned counsel Mr. MTM Hakim for the original appellant-claimant and Ms. Lilu K. Bhaya, learned counsel on behalf of the defendant–Insurance Company. Though the notice served to the other defendant, none appears for the opponent No. 1 and 2.

4. Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed an error while considering the quantum. It is also further submitted that, considering the permanent disability to the injured the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not just compensation. He has submitted that the learned Tribunal has also not considered the future loss of income to the injured. The learned Tribunal has also committed a serious error by considering the disability 13% body as a whole instead of 15% merely on a ground that the advocate appears for the original claimant has put a signature on the pursis and has given consent.

4.1 At the time of accident the injured was at the age of 11 years, now he become major.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has relied upon the following decisions:

1. G. Ravindranath alias R. Chowdary Vs. E. Srinivas and Anr. reported in (2013) 12 SCC Page-455;

2. Shaileshkumar Shantilal Gandhi and Anr. Vs. Sunil Babulal Dixit and Ors. reported in 2013 (1) GJH Page-57

6. On a ground that the claimants cannot stopped from filing the appeal for challenging the disability though his advocate has given a consent on the purses filed by the other side the consent of the advocate cannot come in the way of the appellant and it is not binding upon the appellant.

7. In the case of Shaileshkumar Shantilal Gandhi and Anr. Vs. Sunil Babulal Dixit and Ors. (Supra) this Court has held in para 7 to 16 as under:

7. It is, now, well settled law that concession made at the time of trial by a learned Counsel on a question of fact is biding upon the client, but, a concession made on the question of law by a Counsel is never binding, as there is no estoppal against law. The moment, a learned Counsel places reliance upon a decision of a High Court and asks the Court to follow the said decision, as a binding precedent, it necessarily follows that he has relied upon a proposition of law laid down by the High Court in the given facts. It is well known that there cannot be any precedent on the question of fact and it is the proposition of law, which is laid down in a decision in the binding precedent. Therefore, by relying upon the said decision , the learned Counsel for the claimant in the Tribunal below merely placed reliance upon a statement of law laid down by the High Court. I, therefore, find that if a learned Counsel mistakenly relied upon a decision, in the facts of the said case, such a concession must be treated as a concession of question of law and not of facts and cannot be biding upon his client if the law is otherwise.

8. Mr. Valmik Vyas, learned Counsel, with Mr. Rajni Mehta, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company has also supported Ms. Bhatt and has further relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of “KAUSHALYA DEVI VS. KARAN ARORA AND OTHERS”, 2007 11 SCC 120, wherein