BHAVIK @ BHAVIN DWARKADAS VITHLANI vs GANPATSINH MANUBHA JADEJA

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 6522

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2015 of 2018 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR PRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES)
NO. 1 of 2018 In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2015 of 2018 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA Sd/-
and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA Sd/-
================================================================

1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? NO
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? YES
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? NO
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ? NO
================================================================
BHAVIK @ BHAVIN DWARKADAS VITHLANI Versus GANPATSINH MANUBHA JADEJA & 1 other(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR PREMAL S RACHH(3297) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR DAKSHESH MEHTA(2430) for the Defendant(s) No. 2 MR. RUSHANG D MEHTA(6989) for the Defendant(s) No. 2 NOTICE SERVED(4) for the Defendant(s) No. 1 ================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA Date : 19/01/2021

	1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?	NO
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?		YES
	3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?	NO
	4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ?	NO

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)

(1) The present appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 09.01.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Rajkot ('the Tribunal' for short) in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.993 of 2010, whereby the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition of the appellant by observing that the claimant is entitled to recover an amount of Rs.26,13,600/- with the proportionate cost with interest @9% per annum, from the date of the claim petition till realization from the opponents-

respondents herein jointly and severally.

(2) Short facts of the case are that : On

20.02.2010 the claimant was driving a scooty motorcycle bearing registration no.GJ-03-CM- 2383 at the left side of the road, cautiously and in a moderate speed and when he reached on Kalavad Road, Near Old Jakat Naka, Rajkot at that time, driver of one Toofan Jeep bearing registration no.GJ-10-W-1774 came from behind by driving the Toofan Jeep in a rash and negligent manner, endangering human life and the said Toofan Jeep dashed with the scooty motorcycle of the appellant and the accident took place. It is further the case of the claimant that this accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of driver of the Toofan Jeep, due to which the claimant sustained serious injuries.

(3) The Tribunal, after examining the entire record and medical condition of the appellant, awarded compensation of Rs.26,13,600/- with 9% interest, as aforesaid. Different heads, under which the Tribunal awarded the amount, are stated as below:

Heads	Amount
Future loss of income	12,09,600=00
Pain, shock & suffering	2,00,000=00
Loss of amenities and enjoyment of life	1,00,000=00
Attendant Charges, Special diet and Transportation	1,00,000=00
Medical expenses	8,04,000=00
Physiotherapy treatment and massage charges	1,00,000=00
Future medical expenses	1,00,000=00
Total compensation … …	26,13,600=00

(4) Learned advocate Mr.Premal Rachh appearing on behalf of the appellant-original claimant has submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly taken into consideration the income of the appellant as Rs.4,000/- per month only on the ground that no cogent evidence regarding the income is placed on record. Learned advocate submitted that the Tribunal has further erred in not appreciating that there is sufficient evidence on record in the form of examination of the appellant's father (Exh.32), deposition of witness (Exh.52) (practicing Income Tax Advisor), documentary evidence (Exh.54 to Exh.57) (Audit Reports and Ledgers of Salary Expenses), pleadings etc., which clearly suggests that the appellant had left studies after First Year B.Com. and was earning monthly salary of Rs.12,000/- by managing the affairs of the firm i.e. Balaji Telecom owned by father of the appellant. It is also submitted that the appellant was aged about 22 years and had no bad habits and was hale and hearty at the time of the unfortunate accident.

(4.1) Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant-original claimant has urged that the Tribunal has erred in awarding an amount of only Rs.2,00,000/- under the head of pain, shock and sufferings and Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of amenities and enjoyment of life. It is contended that there is sufficient evidence on record – oral as well as documentary, in the form of examination of Dr.Dineshbhai Kanjibhai Gajera (Exh.44), Medical Certificate issued by Dr.Gajera (Exh.45), which clearly opines 100% disability and vegetative condition of the appellant-original claimant, which is prevalent even till date. It is also submitted that considering the fact that the Tribunal has already assessed 100% functional disability of the appellant with regard to the serious injuries caused to him and in future also he would require constant assistance and medical treatment. It is submitted that the Tribunal ought to have appreciated the aforesaid evidence led by the appellant k

Click Here to Read the rest of this document