ORAL JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is filed by the appellants – original claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation amount awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Mahesana (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) vide impugned judgment and award dated 12.11.2008 passed in M.A.C.P. No.1206 of 2005.

2. Brief facts of the present case are that on 28.03.2005 appellant – original claimant was driving a Maruti van bearing registration No.GJ-2-K-8781 and was going from Mehsana to Village: Unava (Miradatar) and at about 6.30 a.m., when he reached beetween Village: Nani Dau and Soneripura at that time on wrong side, the truck bearing registration no.GJ-2-Y-5295 came in rash and negligent manner and in excessive speed, dashed with the Maruti van, as a result of which, the appellant sustained serious injuries. Hence, the appellant had preferred M.A.C.P. No.1206 of 2005, which came to be partly allowed by the Tribunal vide order dated 12.11.2008 and awarded compensation of Rs.2,04,100/- as against his claim of claiming Rs.3,68,000/-.

3. Heard Mr.Y. M. Thakore, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Mr.S. P. Majmudar, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 and Mr.Nagesh Sood, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 3 – Insurance Company. Though served, nobody appears on behalf of respondent no.1.

4. Mr.Y. M. Thakore, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that while awarding the compensation, the Tribunal has committed serious error by not considering the fact that at the time of accident, the minimum wages is also higher than the amount which is considered by the Tribunal. He has submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error by awarding the amount under the head of pain, shock and suffering. It is further submitted that though there is medical certificate and evidence of the expert on record, however, the Tribunal has not considered the disablement of the appellant to 55% body as a whole, however, without there being cogent reasons, the Tribunal has considered only 28% disability. He has submitted that the amount awarded under the head of special diet, attendant charges etc. is also on lower side. He has prayed to modify the award passed by the learned Tribunal.

5. Mr.S. P. Majmudar, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 and Mr.Nagesh Sood, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 3 – Insurance Company have submitted that the Tribunal has not committed any error in passing the impugned judgment and award. They have prayed for dismissal of the appeal and confirmation of the impugned judgment and award.

6. I have considered the averments made in the appeal and contentions raised by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and also perused the record and proceedings of the case. From the impugned award of the Tribunal, it appears that the Tribunal has committed error by not considering the fact that at the time of accident, the minimum wages is higher than the amount considered by the Tribunal. It also appears that though there is medical certificate and evidence of the expert on record, the Tribunal has not considered the disablement of the appellant to 55% body as a whole, however, without there being cogent reasons, the Tribunal has considered only 28% disability. It also appears that the amount awarded by the Tribunal under the head of pain, shock and suffering, special diet, attendant charges etc. is also on lower side. Considering the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 1211, Kajal Vs. Jagdish Chand and others, (2020) 4 SCC 413 and G. Ravindranath alias R. Chowdary Vs. E. Srinivas and another, (2013) 12 SCC 455, I am of the considered view that the appellants are entitled to get additional amount of compensation considering the income of the original claimant at Rs.2300/- plus 25% rise and the appeal requires to be allowed and the impugned judgment and awar