Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
FA/1004/1989 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST
APPEAL No. 1004 of 1989
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
=========================================================
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 ?
=========================================================
RANJITBHAI
ARJUNBHAI - Appellant(s)
Versus
SHABURBHAI
FATABHAI BHATIA & 3 - Defendant(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
SK BUKHARI for
Appellant(s) : 1,
NOTICE SERVED for Defendant(s) : 1, 4,
MR
NEERAJ SONI,LD.ASST.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Defendant(s) : 2 -
3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 09/12/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
By way of present appeal, the
appellant has challenged the legality and validity of the judgment
and award dated 21st March 1989 passed by the Motor
Accident Claim Tribunal, Panchmahals (hereinafter referred to
as ‘the Tribunal’), in Motor
Accident Claim Petition No.616 of 1984, whereby the Tribunal
has awarded an amount of Rs.32,100/- to the appellant.
It is the case of the appellant
that the applicant was returning to his village on bicycle on
Godhra-Lunavada highway after doing labour work at Bhamaiya village
and plying their bicycle on correct side of the road. When they
reached Nava-Nadarva village at about 08-00 p.m., one tanker bearing
Registration No.GRQ-8103 driven by the respondent No.1 herein in
excessive speed came from the opposite direction and dashed against
the bicycle of the appellant along with the other cyclist who was
also driving with the appellant, who is the applicant of Motor
Accident Claim Petition N.617 of 1984 and both these cyclist
sustained serious injuries and even their cycles also got damaged.
Even the wheels of the said cycles were separated. Thereafter, the
appellant filed Motor
Accident Claim Petition No.616 of 1984 and the said another
person filed Motor
Accident Claim Petition No.617 of 1984. The Tribunal after
hearing the parties partly allowed the said claim petition filed by
the appellant. Hence, present petition.
Mr.S.K. Bukhari, learned advocate
for the appellant, has submitted that the Tribunal has erred in
granting Rs.15,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering without
considering eight injuries sustained by the appellant, as mentioned
in the Medical Certificate at Exh.29; that the Tribunal has erred in
awarding only Rs.12,000/- under the head of future loss of income
and that the Tribunal ought to have appreciated the evidence of
Dr.Arvind Patel at Exh.39. In view of aforesaid submissions, it is
prayed that present appeal may be allowed.
Mr.Neeraj
Soni, learned Assistant Government Pleader, has submitted that the
judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is just and proper. The
Tribunal has after taking into consideration all the aspects of the
matter and evidence on record come to the conclusion, which is just
and proper. Hence, present appeal is required to be dismissed.
Having
considered the contentions raised by the learned advocate for the
appellant, averments made in the appeal and the documentary evidence
produced on record, it transpires that
the Tribunal has after appreciating the evidence on record has come
to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled to only
Rs.32,100/-. It is required to be noted that the Tribunal has also
appreciated the medical evidence at Exhs.29, 30 and 40 while coming
to the conclusion. The Tribunal has also appreciated the evidence of
the appellant, wherein in paragraph 3, he himself has admitted that
get earns an amount of Rs.12-50 ps. per day and therefore, on the
basis of the same, the Tribunal has calculated the income of the
appellant.
In
view of aforesaid, I am of the opinion that the view taken by the
Tribunal is just and proper. The Tribunal has assigned cogent and
convincing reasons for arriving
at the conclusion. Over and above aforesaid reasons, I adopt the
reasons assigned by the Tribunal and do not find any illegality much
less any perversity in the findings recorded. I am in complete
agreement with the findings recorded by the Tribunal. No case is
made out to interfere with the findings recorded by the Tribunal.
Hence, present appeal deserves to be dismissed.
For
the foregoing reasons, present appeal fails and is, accordingly,
dismissed. No order as to costs.
(K.S.
Jhaveri, J)
Aakar
Top