Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
FA/3223/2005 2/ 2 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST
APPEAL No. 3223 of 2005
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT
==========================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
==========================================
NIVEDITA
DEEPAKBHAI GUPTA
Versus
RAJESHBHAI
SHIVLAL HARIJAN C/O. CHADHA & CHADHA TRANSPORT AND OTHERS
==========================================Appearance
:
MR KASHYAP R
JOSHI for the Appellant
SERVED BY RPAD - (R)
for Defendant(s) : 1,
RULE SERVED for Defendant(s) : 2,
MS LILU
K BHAYA for Defendant(s) :
3,
==========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT
Date
: 11/08/2008
ORAL
JUDGMENT
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD)
1. Heard
the learned counsel for the parties.
2. Having
gone through the facts obtained on record, we find that a 15 years
old girl has got her lower limb crushed in the accident and had
undergone surgery and repair of her body. But that has not restored
the grace, which a lady is required to have while she walks.
3. She
has become major and at the time of her marriage, something more
will be required. Regarding this, the Tribunal has awarded
Rs.20,000/-. In our considered opinion, a handicap lady needs
something more than Rs.20,000/- for getting herself married and some
more support for herself to attain posture and gesture, which would
be required to get a match for herself. For which, in the present
circumstances, kind of aids in the nature of physiotherapy and
training is available and and she can undergo that, for which
she would definitely require to have more amount. For that head,
we consider that, instead of Rs.20,000/-, it should be Rs. 2
lakhs so that she would improve herself and persuade some
young bachelor to marry her.
4. The
learned counsel for the Insurance Company raised objection on this
point that only Rs.80,000/- has been demanded in the appeal.
Considering the price escalation and inflation, we are persuaded
that there should be Rs.2 lakhs as stated hereinabove. All
other findings of the learned Tribunal are approved.
5. With
the aforesaid modification, the appeal is disposed of.
6. Record
and proceedings be sent to the Court below immediately.
(BHAGWATI
PRASAD, J.)
(S.R.BRAHMBHATT,
J.)
omkar
Top