SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Guj) 1832

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
J. C. Doshi, J.
Rajendrakumar Vithalbhai Patel – Appellant
Versus
Kevalkumar Ramsharan Rana & Ors. – Defendants
R/First Appeal No. 2553 of 2009
Decided On : 02-12-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ms. Shaili A Kapadia
For the Defendant : Mr Sunil B Parikh

IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized that just compensation must restore the victim to their pre-accident condition while ensuring the assessment of functional disability reflects the severity of injuries sustained.

Headnote:

(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 166 and 173 - First Appeal against the judgment and award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, seeking enhancement of compensation for injuries sustained in a road accident - The Tribunal granted Rs.8,19,740/- with 7.5% interest, which the claimant argued was inadequate given the total paraplegia suffered. (Paras 1, 2.1, 3, 4, 18, 19)

(B) Just Compensation - The court emphasized that just compensation must restore the victim as closely as possible to their pre-accident condition, acknowledging the limitations of monetary awards while ensuring that the compensation is neither overly conservative nor excessively liberal. (Paras 5, 17)

(C) Assessment of Compensation - The court found the Tribunal's assessment of functional disability at 80% inadequate, ruling it should be considered as 100% due to the severity of the injuries. The court enhanced compensation for pain, shock, suffering, and future medical expenses. (Paras 16, 18, 19)

Facts of the case:

The claimant was severely injured in a road accident involving a luxury bus and a truck, resulting in paraplegia and significant medical expenses.

Findings of Court:

The court held that the claimant is entitled to an enhanced compensation of Rs.3,39,884/- with 7.5% interest from the date of filing the claim petition.

Issues: The main issues included the adequacy of compensation awarded, the assessment of functional disability, and the determination of liability among tortfeasors.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Tribunal's assessment of disability was erroneous and emphasized the need for just compensation, highlighting the principle of restitutio ad integrum.

Result: The appeal was partly allowed, enhancing the compensation awarded. (Paras 19, 21)

JUDGMENT :

J. C. Doshi, J.

1. The present First Appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is preferred by the appellant – original claimant being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 01.07.2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panchmahals at Godhra in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.1949 of 2001.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:

2.1 On 23.04.2001, the claimant was travelling in Luxury Bus No.GJ-17-W-1786 and when the bus reached near the place of accident, at that time, opponent no.1 came driving truck No.HR- 38-A-5336 in rash and negligent manner and dashed with luxury bus. As a result, the claimant received serious injuries.

2.2 FIR of incident was registered before Kalol Police Station being C.R.No.91 of 2001.

2.3. The claimant filed claim petition under section 166 of MV Act being MACP No.1949 of 2001 claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- along with interest @ 15% jointly and severally from driver, owner and insurer of Bus No.GJ-17-W-1786 and Truck No.HR-38-A-5336.

2.4. After appreciating evidence on record, learned Tribunal was pleased to pass judgment and award in tune of Rs.8,19,740/- with 7.5% interest from the date of claim petition.

2.5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with impugned judgment and award dated 01.07.2008, the original claimant has filed present appeal.

3. Learned advocate Ms. Kapadia for the appellant / claimant would submit that learned Tribunal has committed serious error in grating compensation on lower side. It is submitted that claimant pursuant to injury received from road accident became total paraplegic, yet learned Tribunal has taken functional disability upto 80%. It is submitted that since claimant has suffered paraplegic, he totally become dysfunctional but learned Tribunal did not attribute 100% functional disability and did not compute compensation accordingly. She would submit that learned Tribunal ought to have granted compensation for loss of future prospects. It is also submitted that compensation under the head of pain, shock and suffering should be granted on higher side. It is submitted that though claimant has produced medical bills at Exh.51 and Exh.52 to claim compensation, learned Tribunal did not consider future medical expenses and even did not grant attendant charge etc. Therefore, it is submitted that since on all count impugned award is on lower side, this Court by allowing this appeal should grant just and fair compensation to the claimant.

4. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr.Parikh submitted that multiplier of 15 would applied and learned Tribunal has taken multiplier of 16 instead. Looking to the facts of the case, it is submitted that learned Tribunal has not committed any error in granting compensation which is just and proper. Therefore, it is submitted to dismiss the appeal.

5. Heard learned advocates for the parties extensively and also perused Record and proceedings of the case. Recently, the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of K.S.Muralidhar Versus R.Subbulakshmi And Another [2024-JX(SC)-0-950] in para 2 and 3 has held as under :-

    "2. The concept of just compensation rests on the principle of restitutio ad integrum which means restoration to the original condition, as far as possible, taking the person to whom damages are awarded, to a position as if the incident or in this case, the accident, had never occurred. While this is a well-recognized and positive principle of law, we must also recognize its limitations. The award of compensation, however much it may be, does not give back to the person who affected their life but only alleviates the worry of being able to secure the required amenities.

    3. In awarding non-pecuniary damages, this Court has often highlighted the difficulty in computation, for there is no manner in which such determination lends itself to formulaic ciphering. Every person in life has undertaken certain steps towards the realization of dreams, held goals and aspirations, and when they land

              Click Here to Read the rest of this document
              1
              2
              3
              4
              5
              6
              7
              8
              9
              10
              11
              SupremeToday Portrait Ad
              supreme today icon
              logo-black

              An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

              Please visit our Training & Support
              Center or Contact Us for assistance

              qr

              Scan Me!

              India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

              For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

              whatsapp-icon Back to top