Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
FA/103/2011 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST
APPEAL No. 103 of 2011
=========================================
USHABEN
D/O VENABHAI PATEL - Appellant(s)
Versus
PUSHPENDRASINH
VIJAYSINH SISODIYA & 2 - Defendant(s)
=========================================
Appearance
:
MR SANJAY D
SUTHAR for
Appellant(s) : 1,
None for Defendant(s) : 1 -
3.
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Date
: 19/01/2011
ORAL
ORDER
1. Present
First Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been
preferred by the appellant – original claimant challenging the
impugned judgment and award dated 01.07.2009 passed by the learned
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court No.2, at Himatnagar,
Sabarkantha in M.A.C.P. No.186/2008 insofar as not awarding the full
claim as prayed for.
2. Shri
Suthar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has
submitted that the Tribunal has materially erred in awarding the
future economic loss of Rs.22,440/- only considering the permanent
partial disability at 4% only. No other submissions have been made.
3. It
is to be noted that the appellant produced the certificate of Dr.
P.N. Shah at Exh.29 assessing the permanent partial disability body
as a whole at 4% only, which was even agreed by the appellant and
therefore, considering the above when the learned Tribunal has
awarded the future economic loss, it cannot be said that the learned
Tribunal has committed any error and/or illegality. On the contrary,
considering the recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Rajkumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Another reported in (2011)
1 SCC 343, when in fact the appellant – original claimant
has not sustained any loss in income, it is very doubtful whether the
Tribunal would have been justified in awarding the future economic
loss, though the appellant has not sustained any future economic
loss. Be that as it may, when the other side has not preferred any
appeal, this Court is not required to consider the same.
4. Considering
the aforesaid facts and circumstances, there is no substance in the
present Appeal which deserves to be dismissed and is, accordingly,
dismissed.
(M.R.
Shah, J.)
*menon
Top