Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(GUJ) 25729
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI, J
MANUBHAI GAMIRBHAI BARAI (BHIL) – Appellant
Versus
RAMESHBHAI SOMABHAI NAYAK – Respondent
FIRST APPEAL NO. 153 of 2014
MR MAKBUL I MANSURI(2694) for the Appellant(s) No. 1, MR KEYUR A VYAS(3247) for the Defendant(s) No. 4, MR MITESH L RANGRAS(3324) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
The court emphasized that under the Motor Vehicles Act, compensation must be just and fair, allowing awards beyond the claimed amount based on evidence.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166 and 168 - Compensation for injuries sustained in a motor accident - Tribunal awarded Rs.47,200/-; appeal for enhancement due to errors in multiplier and future prospects - Claimant suffered permanent disability and incurred medical expenses - Court found errors in the Tribunal's assessment of income and multiplier, ruling that the correct multiplier should be 18 for a claimant under 25 years of age - Compensation for pain, shock, suffering, and medical expenses was also deemed insufficient and enhanced accordingly. (Paras 10, 11, 12, 13)
(B) Just Compensation - The Motor Vehicles Act mandates that compensation should be just and fair, irrespective of the amount claimed by the claimant - Courts are not restricted to the amount claimed and should award compensation based on evidence presented. (Paras 10, 11, 12)
Facts of the case:
The claimant was injured in a collision caused by the negligent driving of a truck, resulting in permanent disability and significant medical expenses. The Tribunal initially awarded Rs.47,200/- as compensation, which the claimant appealed to enhance.
Findings of Court:
The court recalculated the compensation to Rs.1,34,768/- based on a correct multiplier and additional heads of compensation, with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition.
Issues: The main issues included the appropriate multiplier for calculating future loss of income and the adequacy of compensation for pain, shock, and suffering.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the Tribunal erred in applying a multiplier of 5 instead of 18 and failing to account for future prospects, emphasizing the need for just compensation as per the Motor Vehicles Act.
Result: Appeal partly allowed; compensation enhanced to Rs.1,34,768/- with interest.
ORAL ORDER
1. For enhancement in the compensation, the claimant is in appeal. Challenge is made to the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Aux.) Panchmahals at Godhra delivered in M.A.C.P. No.1997 of 1997 whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.47,200/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization earmarking the responsibility of defendant Nos.1 and 2 to pay Rs.18,880/- exonerating defendant No.3 and earmarking responsibility of defendant Nos.4 and 5 to pay compensation in tune of Rs.28,320/- with interest as stated earlier.
2. The brief facts of the case are as under.
2.1 On 11.12.1996, at about 3.00 p.m., the applicant along with other technicians went in Truck bearing Registration No.GJ-6-V-5329 of opponent No.1 from Vadodara to Halol. At that time, opponent No.1 had driven the truck rashly and negligently and dashed with the tempo loaded with acid coming from opposite side. In the said accident, the claimant sustained injuries and he was admitted to the SSG Hospital and thereafter, the claimant received treatment from Panchal Hospital, Godhara. Due to the accident, the claimant suffered permanent disability and had to incur medical expenses. Hence, the claimant filed claim petition before the learned Tribunal which partly-allowed the claim petition. Hence, this appeal.
3. Heard learned advocate Mr.Makbul Mansuri appearing for the appellant and learned advocate Mr.Mitesh Rangras appearing for the Insurance Company.
4. The sum and substance of the argument of learned advocate for the appellant is that the learned Tribunal lost sight to the aspect of not granting 40% future prospects which is required to be granted. He would further submit that learned Tribunal erred in taking the multiplier of 5 and has also erred in granting meager compensation under the head of pain, shock and suffering, medical expenses, transportation, attendant charges etc. and therefore he submitted that the amount of compensation granted to the claimant be enhanced.
5. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr.Rangras appearing for the Insurance Company submitted that learned Tribunal has passed just and proper award within the reliefs claimed by the claimant. He would submit that no interference in the impugned award is required to be made in this appeal. He would further submit that the claimant has asked compensation in tune of Rs.1,00,000/- and therefore claimant cannot be granted compensation beyond he has claimed in the claim petition. Upon above submissions, he submit to dismiss this appeal.
6. Having heard learned advocates for both sides and having close look at the impugned judgment and award, what could be noticed that in absence of evidence of income on the part of the claimant, learned Tribunal has assessed the income of claimant at Rs.2,000/- per month. According to this Court, taking the time of the road incident, acceptance of Rs.2,000/- as monthly income of the claimant is not on lower side. However, learned Tribunal committed serious error in adopting the multiplier of 5 and not granting future prospects on the amount of income. Learned Tribunal has erred in taking multiplier of 5 on the ground that the claimant was a Government employee. However, there is nothing on record to prove that he was permanent Government employee. The claimant was a contractual employee. Moreover, undisputedly due to accidental injury and the disablement arising from the injury, earning capacity of the claimant is also affected. Free movement being restricted by the injury is also one of the factor to decide the application of multiplier in calculating the compensation ( See : Sandeep Khanuja vs. Atul Dande and another – 2017 (3) SCC 351 ). Thus, the multiplier which is required to be taken for deciding the loss of income must be corresponding to the age of the claimant and as per the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay S
