Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
FA/1667/1984 6/ 6 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST
APPEAL No. 1667 of 1984
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
=================================================
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 ?
=================================================
BHAGWANDAS
KARSANDAS PATEL - Appellant(s)
Versus
GUJARAT
STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION & 1 - Defendant(s)
=================================================
Appearance
:
MR
KF DALAL for Appellant(s) : 1,
RULE SERVED for respondent
no.1,
DELETED for respondent
no.2,
=================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
Date
: 28/07/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
The
present First Appeal is filed by appellant-Bhagwandas Karsandas
Patel, who is the original claimant in Motor Accident Claim Petition
No.496 of 1981, which was decided by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Aux.), Ahmedabad (Rural) at Narol (hereinafter referred to
as the Tribunal ). The application was partly allowed and the
opponents were directed to pay Rs.40,925/- with proportionate cost
and interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application
till payment. The Tribunal was also pleased to order that if the
opponents fail to deposit the aforesaid amount within three months,
the interest shall be calculated at the rate of 12% per annum instead
of 6% per annum. The present appeal is filed to claim an additional
amount of Rs.84,075/- while the First Appeal is valued at
Rs.1,25,000/- for jurisdiction. The matter was notified before this
Court on 28.06.2010. Learned advocate Mr.Dalal was not present. The
matter was then adjourned to the following dates.
Date
of listing
Adjourned
to
28.06.2010
05.07.2010
05.07.2010
13.07.2010
13.07.2010
16.07.2010
16.07.2010
22.07.2010
22.07.2010
28.07.2010
Despite
the above said adjournments, learned advocate Mr.K.F. Dalal for the
appellant has not remained present before the Court to argue the
First Appeal. Though served, the respondent-GSRTC has not filed its
appearance.
2. Taking
into consideration the fact that the First Appeal is filed in the
year 1984; by now it is more than a quarter century old, the Court
deemed fit to peruse the Record & Proceedings which is received
along with the judgement and award and dispose of the First Appeal on
merits.
3. The
facts giving rise to the present First Appeal as set out in para 2 of
the judgement and award passed by the Tribunal are as under:
On 30.3.81
the applicant was on the truck bearing registration no.GTZ 8843. One
Rajnikant Ramjibhai was the driver of the said truck. The applicant
and the said driver of the truck had gone to Vadagam for transporting
grit. When they came near village Sonada the driver detected some
defect in the truck and some unusual noise was detected in the
running of truck. Therefore, he took the truck on the extreme left
hand side of the road and parked in such manner that more portion of
the truck would remain on the katcha shoulder of the highway and only
some portion of it would remain on the highway. According to the
applicant, the driver of the truck had kept the tail lamp on and the
driver was about to find out some stones to put them around the truck
in order to make a cordon and the applicant, who was knowing the work
of mechanic, went below the truck. He found that one of the joints
by which the propeller shaft gets motion was broken and he was about
to take out the same and all of a sudden the truck received a severe
jolt as a result of which it proceeded in the direction which it was
facing fro about 50′ to 60′ and thereafter, it stopped after dashing
against a tree. The applicant, in order to save himself from being
crushed under the ruck made an attempt to come out but the rear wheel
of the truck caused injury to him on his knees and on the right ulna.
The truck received jolt and motion all of a sudden because according
to the applicant, the ST bus No.GRT 7533 owned by opponent no.1 and
driven by its driver deleted opponent no.2 dashed against the
stationary truck that the said ST bus was driven at the time of the
accident very rashly and negligently and the driver of the ST bus has
not blown horn. The applicant, who was admitted in the Shardaben
Hospital, Ahmedabad was treated as in-door patient for 14 days and
thereafter, he consulted private orthopedic surgeon. A nail had to be
inserted in the ulna shaft and it is still there as it is not removed
from right arm. According to the applicant, that gives him pain
while working and now he is not in a position to have firm grip with
his right arm and he has therefore, claimed Rs.1,25,000/- by way of
compensation.
4. The
Tribunal has noted the contentions raised by the GSRTC in para 2 of
the judgment. Issues are raised in para 3. Issue no.1 is discussed
in paras 5, 6 and 7. Issue no.2 is discussed in paras 8, 9, 10, 11,
12, 13 and 14. The Tribunal has discussed the aspect of economic
loss in paras, 15, 16, 17, 19, and 21. In para 21, the Tribunal has
discussed about the damage caused to the truck.
5. The
question for consideration of this Court is about the quantum, i.e.
issue no.2 in the judgement and award. On perusal of the award, it is
noticed that in paras 9, 10 and 11 the Tribunal has considered the
question of medical treatment, transportation, special diet and cost
towards attendant charges. So far as pain, shock and suffering and
loss of amenities and enjoyment of life is concerned, the same is
considered by the Tribunal in para 12. Finally the Tribunal has
recorded in para 13 as under:
Thus, from
the above discussion, one thing is certain that the applicant will
have to bear the serious after-effects of the accidental injuries.
The applicant would not be in a position to lift heavy weight with
his right hand nor would he in a position to drive the heavy vehicle
comfortably. Further as deposed to by Dr.Arvind M. Shah, the
applicant will have to undergo yet another operation for the removal
of the plate inserted into his right hand. Thus, the applicant was
aged about 19 years at the time of the accident and he will have to
learn to live with this disability for th rest of his life, which
having regard to the age of the applicant would not be less than four
decades.
So
far as the amount of award under pain, shock and suffering and loss
of amenities and enjoyment of life is concerned the Tribunal has
relied upon a decision in the matter of Chaturji Amaraji &
others Vs. Ahmed Rahim Bux and others, reported in (1978) XIX
GLR 850, in which case there was loss of right fore arm from elbow
joint. The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.15,000/- which cannot
be said to be on lower side. The amount awarded is reasonable.
So
far as economic loss is concerned, the Tribunal has considered the
evidence led before it in all minute details and has then decided the
amount which can be awarded by way of economic loss to the claimants.
The Tribunal has undertaken the desired exercise in para 18.
Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that this First Appeal has no
merits. Hence it is dismissed.
(RAVI
R. TRIPATHI, J.)
karim
Top