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) 1840

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
J. C. Doshi, J.
Patel Bhailalbhai Shankarlal – Petitioner
Versus
National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. – Respondents
R/First Appeal No. 1281 of 2009
Decided On : 06-12-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr Mayur Rajguru
For the Respondent: Mr Nagesh C Sood

IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the necessity of applying the multiplier method for assessing compensation in personal injury cases, rejecting the lower multiplier used by the Tribunal and enhancing compensation to reflect actual loss of earning capacity.

Headnote:

(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 173 - First Appeal against the judgment and award dated 30.8.2006 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mehsana - Compensation of Rs.76,200/- awarded with 9% interest challenged - Appellant sustained serious injuries in a road accident caused by a matador - Tribunal's assessment of income and application of multiplier criticized. (Paras 1, 2, 10, 18)

(B) Compensation - Assessment of compensation for permanent disability - Court emphasized the application of multiplier method for calculating future loss of income, rejecting the lower multiplier applied by the Tribunal - Enhanced compensation awarded to meet the ends of justice. (Paras 11, 16, 17)

Facts of the case:

The appellant was injured in a road accident on 17-Jun-2001 while chatting on the roadside, receiving serious injuries from a matador driven negligently. An FIR was registered, and a claim petition for Rs.300,000/- was filed, resulting in an award of Rs.76,200/- by the Tribunal.

Findings of Court:

The appellant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.1,80,260/- with 9% interest from the date of filing the claim petition.

Issues: The main issues included the appropriateness of the income assessment and multiplier applied by the Tribunal, and the entitlement for future loss of income due to permanent disability.

Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the Tribunal erred in applying a low multiplier and not accounting for the claimant's actual income and future prospects, emphasizing that just compensation must reflect the loss of earning capacity due to injuries.

Result: Appeal partly allowed, with the enhanced compensation awarded.

JUDGMENT :

J. C. DOSHI, J.

1. The present First Appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is preferred by the appellants – original claimants being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 30.8.2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mehsana in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.1078 of 2001, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.76,200/- with 9% interest from the date of filing the claim petition till realization to the claimant.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant received serious bodily injuries as well as fractures of Tibia Fibula of bones on the left leg while the appellant was standing and chit chatting on the bank of the road at near Delvada Primary School, Kalri-Modhera Road on 17-Jun-2001 at around 12:00 noon while the one Mr. Chimanlal Manordas Patel along with Mr. Dashrathbhai Patel while proceeding on a scooter, saw the appellant and therefore halted for a while to chit chat with the appellant, at that time one matador bearing registration no. GJ- 3-X-1214 came from Becharaji being driven in a rash and negligent manner and in an excessive speed, dashed with the appellant as well as the Chimanlal Manordas Patel and in the result both received serious bodily injuries as well as the fracture injuries.

2.1 An FIR was registered for the aforestated offence before the concerned Police Station having jurisdiction. The appellant has filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.300000/- before the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal passed the impugned judgment and award as stated herein above.

3. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.

4. Learned advocate for the appellant mainly argued that the learned Tribunal has assessed the compensation on much lower sip. He would further submit that the learned Tribunal did not consider the income of the victim while deciding compensation for future loss of income and instead has taken Rs.2000/- per month as income. He would further submit that multiplier of 5, which is unknown to the regular formula available for assessment of compensation has been applied instead of 12 considering the age of the victim to be 47 years at the time of road accident. He would further submit that the claimant was teacher at the relevant time and he was earning Rs.12,250/- as per salary slip produced on record and that amount ought to have been taken as income of the claimant. He would further submit that the learned Tribunal has also not granted compensation under the head of medical expenses though medical bills are also placed on record. He would further submit that the compensation under the head of attendant charges to the tune of Rs.5000/- and transportation charges of Rs.2000/- are also on the lower side.

4.1 Upon such submission, learned advocate Mr. Rajyaguru prays to allow this appeal and to enhance the compensation.

5. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Nagesh Sood appearing for the respondent insurance company supports the impugned judgment and award and submitted that the learned Tribunal has rightly considered the income of the claimant to Rs.2000/- in view of the fact that the claimant was working as Teacher at the relevant point of time and his income post accident continued as his work was continued and looking to that aspect, the learned Tribunal has assessed Rs.2000/-, which he should earn post retirement and applied multiplier of 5. Thus, he submits that it is a fit case which requires no interference at the hands of this Court.

5.1 Upon above submissions, learned advocate Mr. Nagesh Sood prays to dismiss the First Appeal.

6. I have heard learned advocates for the respective parties and also perused the R & P.

7. On an unfortunate day, the appellant was standing and chit chatting on the bank of the road at near Delvada Primary School, Kalri-Modhera Road on 17-Jun-2001 at around 12:00 noon while the one Mr. Chimanlal Manordas Patel along with Mr. Dashrathbhai Patel while proceeding on a

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