Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
FA/474/2011 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST
APPEAL No. 474 of 2011
With
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 3010 of 2011
In
FIRST
APPEAL No. 474 of 2011
=========================================================
NEW
INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD - Appellant(s)
Versus
IRFANBHAI
SHABBIRBHAI FRUITWALA & 1 - Defendant(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
VICKY MEHTA FOR MR HASMUKH THAKKER
for Appellant(s) : 1,
None
for Defendant(s) : 1 -
2.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 29/03/2011
ORAL
ORDER
1. This
appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 25.11.2010
passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Ahmedabad
(Rural) in M.A.C.P. No.1144/2005 whereby, the claim petition has been
partly allowed and the original opponents have been held liable to
pay Rs.5,59,000/- as compensation with proportionate costs and
interest to the original claimant.
2. The
facts in brief are that on 27.10.2005 while respondent no.1 herein,
original claimant, was driving his motor-cycle bearing No.
GJ-1-CG-8697 with his wife as a pillion rider, a car bearing No.
GJ-15N-2727 came from the opposite direction and dashed the
motor-cycle. As a result thereof, respondent no.1 sustained severe
bodily injuries. Later, he filed the claim petition before the
Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.6.00 Lacs. After considering the
records of the case, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition
by way of the impugned award. Being aggrieved by the same, the
appellant-Insurance company has preferred the present appeal.
3. Heard
learned counsel for the appellant and perused the documents on
record. The impugned award passed by the Tribunal has been assailed
mainly on the grounds that the motor-cyclists ought to have been held
liable for contributory negligence and that the compensation has been
arrived at without any basis.
4. As
per the say of the complainant, who happens to be the wife of
respondent no.1, original claimant, the car in question came from the
opposite direction in full side. Before the Tribunal, the
applicant-Insurance Company has not examined the driver of the car,
i.e. respondent no.2 herein. No documentary evidence were produced by
the applicant in support of its written statement. In view of the
above, adverse inference was drawn against the applicant and
consequently, the Tribunal held that respondent no.2-driver was
solely negligent for the accident in question.
5. So
far as the issue of quantum of compensation is concerned, the
Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the claimant at
Rs.15,000/-. It appears that before the Tribunal, the
applicant-Insurance Company has not cross-examined the original
claimant on the issue of income. In the absence of the same, the
Tribunal assessed the monthly income at Rs.15,000/-.
6. Considering
the facts of the case and the evidence on record, the assessment made
by the Tribunal is just, legal and reasonable. I am in complete
agreement with the reasoning given by the Tribunal in the impugned
award and hence, find no reasons to interfere in this appeal.
7. For
the foregoing reasons, the appeal is summarily rejected.
Consequently, the civil application stands disposed of.
[K.
S. JHAVERI, J.]
Pravin/*
Top