Back
2023 Supreme(Guj) 384
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
S.V. PINTO, J.
BALVANTSINH NARVATSINH SOLANKI – Appellant
Versus
PRASHANTKUMAR RAJENDRAKUMAR SHAH – Respondent
First Appeal Nos. 355, 356 of 2013
Decided On : 29-04-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : M.T.M. HAKIM.
For the Respondent: PALAK H. THAKKAR.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of legal provisions and precedent to justify the calculation of compensation, including future loss of income and non-pecuniary compensation.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation - Section 173 - The court discussed the circumstances of the accident and held the driver of the Ambassador car solely responsible. The court referred to the judgment in Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation vs. Maheshbhai Bhagvatlal Joshi to justify the award of future loss of income. The court also considered the decision in Mallikarjun vs. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. and Another to calculate compensation for a minor suffering from permanent disability.
Fact of the Case:
The claimants were involved in a motor vehicle accident, resulting in injuries and the death of one of the claimants. The Motor Accident Claim Tribunal awarded compensation, which the claimants appealed, seeking enhanced compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the driver of the Ambassador car solely responsible for the accident. It also held that the claimants were entitled to enhanced compensation based on the judgments in similar cases.
Issues: The main issue was the calculation of compensation, including future loss of income and non-pecuniary heads for a minor suffering from permanent disability.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on legal provisions and previous judgments to justify the award of future loss of income and non-pecuniary compensation for the claimants.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the appeals and awarded enhanced compensation to the claimants, directing the respondent Insurance Company to deposit the enhanced amounts with interest.
JUDGMENT :
S.V. PINTO, J.
Though served, no one has appeared for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
1. This appeals have been preferred by the appellants-original claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short “the Act”) being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the common judgment and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Aux.), Vadodara in M.A.C.P.No. 795 of 2003, M.A.C.P.No. 796 of 2003 and MACP No. 797 of 2003 dated 29.11.2011. All the claim petitions have arisen out of the same accident and the learned Tribunal has disposed the claim petitions by a common judgment dated 29.11.2011. First Appeal No. 355 of 2013 and First Appeal No. 356 of 2013 have arisen out of the same common judgment hence, both the appeals are disposed of by a common judgment.
2. The brief facts of the case that emerge from the record are as under:
2.1 That on 27.3.2003, the applicant of MACP No. 797 of 2003 was driving Hero Honda Motorcycle No. GJ 17 K 6081 and Hiralben Balwansinh Solanki, his daughter, the applicant of MACP No. 796 of 2003 and his wife Niruben Balwantsinh Solanki were traveling as pillion riders on the motorcycle and at around 12.30 pm when they reached near Bhuval stand towards Bariya on the Bariya - Godhra Road the opponent No. 1 came driving Ambasador Car No. GJ 16 U 2759, in a rash and negligent manner and collided with the motorcycle of the deceased as a result of which all the persons on the motorcycle fell down and sustained grievous injuries. That the injuries sustained by Niruben Balwantsinh Solanki were very serious and she succumbed to her injuries and her legal heirs filed MACP No. 795 of 2003 for compensation.
3. Notices were duly served to all the opponents in the claim petitions and the opponent Nos.1 and 2 did not appear whereas, the opponent No. 3 -Insurance Company appeared and filed the written statements at Exhibits 13, 14 and 15 respectively in all the claim petitions mainly denying all the averments and allegations made in the claim petitions. The Insurance Company has inter alia contended that the applicant of MACP No. 796 of 2003 was solely responsible for causing the accident as he was driving the motorcycle with two pillion riders and while trying to overtake one luxury bus lost control over the motorcyle and dashed it with the vehicle of opponent No. 1 and the opponents are not liable to pay any amount of compensation to the claimants.
4. The learned Tribunal after having considered the evidence on record held the opponent No. 1- driver of Ambasador Car No. GJ 16 U 2759 solely responsible and accepted the evidence of the claimant in the context of the circumstances of the case and held that the applicant of M.A.C.P No. 796 of 2003, the driver of Hero Honda Motorcycle No. GJ 17 K 6081 was not rash and negligent at the time of the accident.
5. The learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition of the applicant of M.A.C.P No. 796 of 2003 and awarded an amount of Rs. 50,000/- towards mental pain, shock and sufering, Rs.17492/- towards medical expenses, Rs.5,000/- towards special diet, Rs. 5,000/- towards transportation, Rs.5,000/- towards the attendant charges and Rs. 57,924/- as actual loss of income and awarded the total amount of Rs.1,40,416/- as compensation to the claimant. That the learned Tribunal did not award any amount as loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability as while recording the evidence the claimant had categorically stated that he was earning a salary of Rs.4800/- per month and on the date of recording the evidence, he was getting salary of Rs. 11,000/- per month and as his income had not degraded because of the accidental injuries no compensation was awarded under the head loss of future earning.
5.1 The learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petiton of the applicant of M.A.C.P No. 797 of 2003 and awarded an amount of Rs. 50,000/- towards mental pain, shock and sufering, Rs. 1700/- towards medical expenses, Rs.5,000/- towards special diet, Rs. 5,000/
