Contributory negligence requires evidence of rule violations, not just collision patterns. Private medical insurance reimbursements are collateral benefits, not deductible from accident claims. Future earning loss calculations must focus on an individual's functional professional impairment rather than generic physical disability percentages to ensure just compensation.

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE)

The First Appeal No. 799 of 2010 is preferred by the original claimant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act of 1988') whereas First Appeal No. 247 of 2010 has been preferred by the New India Assurance Company Limited-original opponent No. 3 (hereinafter to be referred as “Insurance Company”), being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 19.02.2009 (hereinafter to be referred as “the impugned judgment and award”) passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Ahmedabad, in M.A.C.P. No. 1284 of 1997. By the said impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition preferred by the present appellant of First Appeal No. 799 of 2010 under Section 166 of the Act of 1988. The original claimant is thus held entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 8,69,941/- from the original opponents Nos. 1 to 3, jointly and severally, with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 8% from the date of petition till its actual realization.

The original claimant is thus mainly aggrieved by the amount of compensation being confined to Rs. 17,39,882/- as against the claim of Rs. 15,00,000/-. In the process, the claimant has also disputed the issue of contributory negligence to the extent of 50% being attributed to the claimant as arbitrary and against the basic principles of law, and are therefore, seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation on the aforesaid ground as well as are also raising the issue of permanent partial disability being not rightly considered while awarding the loss of future prospects. The other heads of compensation have also been disputed. On the other hand, the appellant-Insurance Company in the cognate appeal i.e. First Appeal No. 247 of 2010, has raised the issue of liability as well as the quantum of compensation being determined on the higher side.

Noticing the fact that both the appeals challenge the same impugned judgment and award, were directed to be notified together and heard finally, and are decided by this common judgment.

This Court, vide order dated 15.03.2011, while hearing the application for stay preferred in First Appeal No. 247 of 2010, on the deposit of the entire award amount, had permitted the original claimant to seek withdrawal of 20% of such deposited award amount, and the remaining 80% of the amount deposited before the Tribunal, was directed to be invested in a fixed deposit scheme in any Nationalized Bank initially for a period of three years, which was further directed to be renewed from time to time till disposal of the captioned appeals, with further liberty to seek periodical withdrawal or periodical interest by the claimant. This Court, with such conditions, had confirmed ad-interim relief granted earlier, pending the appeal.

With consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the matters were taken up for final hearing.

Learned advocate Mr. Mohsin M. Hakim has appeared on behalf of the original claimant. Mr. Palak Thakkar, learned advocate, has entered appearance on behalf of respondent No. 3-Insurance Company, and has also appeared in the cognate appeal preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company therein. Though, the rule of admission of the appeals qua respondents Nos. 1 and 2 is reported to have remained unserved; however, with the able assistance of the learned advocates on record, the matters have peremptorily heard finally.

The learned advocate for the original claimant has vehemently assailed the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, mainly on the issue of negligence and the quantum of compensation. It is submitted that the Tribunal has