IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of disability and compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, considering the impact of lifelong injuries and the claimant's occupation as an agriculturist.

JUDGMENT :

1. Challenge has been given by the injured claimant to the judgment dated 30.12.2017 passed by the MACT (Main), Patan in MACP no.258/13.

2. Mr. Kaash Thakkar, learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the injured claimant suffered from amputation of right leg, 3 different platings in right hand and a puncture in the intestine. The very condition of the claimant shows that he would not be in a position to earn the same income or continue with the work as he was doing earlier. Advocate Mr. Thakkar submitted that the amputation of the right leg is coupled with the fact that he has suffered injury in the intestine with 3 different platings in right hand, which would add to the physical disability of amputation and hence, submitted that the assessment of the functional disability ought to have been made in accordance to the evidence on record and the physical disability along with the fact of his profession which in this case is being an agriculturist. Advocate Mr. Thakkar further submitted that the pain, shock and suffering would not only be at the time of the accident, but in case of amputation and injury on other parts of the body and specifically to the intestine would bring a lifelong injury and suffering to the claimant and hence, the Tribunal was required to compensate the claimant under the head of pain, shock and suffering so that the amount could have been evaluated as per the pain which the claimant would have and which he would suffer throughout his life and hence, urged to grant amount under the head of pain, shock and suffering corresponding to the injury and the functional disability and further stated that the assessment of the income ought to have been on the basis of the work undertaken by the claimant. Advocate Mr. Thakkar stated that being an agriculturist, it would be very difficult to produce any statement of accounts regarding the income and the expenses as the agricultural income is not taxable and hence, no evidence in the form of ITR could be brought on record and thus, stated that the Tribunal was required to assess the income considering the managerial skill of supervision of the claimant for the agricultural property as well as the to the fact that he was earning income by depositing milk in the Cooperative Society.

3. Advocate Mr. Gadhia for the insurance company submitted that the assessment of the physical disability is considered by following Part-II of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 and thus, the assessment is in accordance to the provisions of law and further submitted that the claimant has failed to prove his income and thus, submitted that at the most, the amount can be granted for his work as a managerial skill and for that, reliance can be placed on the minimum wages schedule rather than going on assumption of taking into fact of agricultural property and the income from other sources which probably would have continued and there would not have been any major loss to the claimant as could continue to generate income with the assistance of other person.

4. The brief facts as have been noted by the Tribunal with regard to the accident is as under:-

On 5.6.2013 at about 15.00 hrs., the applicant was on his bicycle on the left side of the road and was heading towards Harij. As per the facts of the case, when he reached near Laxmi Ginning Cotton, the driver of the car bearing registration no. GJ- 24 K-1860 came driving in full speed in rash and negligent manner and lost control over the car and came on the wrong side of the road and hit the applicant.

5. The claimant was taken to the hospital of Dr. Vimal Gandhi at Patan, where he was treated for fracture humorous at right hand and operated on right leg below knee and also plates were inserted on right hand ulna bone and was operated for intestine puncture and also plates were inserted due to compound fracture on right hand bones and the applicant has remained as an indoor patient for 35 days.

6. At the time of the accident, he wa