Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
FA/2271/2002 5/ 5 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST
APPEAL No. 2271 of 2002
=========================================================
DR.KRUSHNAKANT
RAMANLAL SHAH - Appellant(s)
Versus
GSRTC
& 2 - Defendant(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
MP PRAJAPATI for
Appellant(s) : 1,
SERVED BY RPAD - (N) for Defendant(s) : 1,
MS
ROOPAL R PATEL for Defendant(s) : 1,
UNSERVED-REFUSED (N) for
Defendant(s) : 2,
MR SUNIL B PARIKH for Defendant(s) :
3,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD
Date
: 24/09/2008
ORAL
ORDER
Heard
learned advocate Mr. Prajapati on behalf of appellant.
The
appellant has challenged award passed by Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Rural) Court at Gandhinagar in MACP no.
2145/1990 dated 18/1/2001. The claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.
2,22,000/- with 11% interest in favour of appellant.
Learned
advocate Mr. Prajapati raised contention that no amount is awarded
for pain, shock and suffering and not considered future lose of
income and also ignored actual loss of income by claims Tribunal.
Therefore, present appeal is filed.
I
have considered submissions made by learned advocate Mr. Prajapati
and I have perused award passed by claims Tribunal.
The
accident occurred on 11/10/1990 at about 9.30 p.m. when Dr.
Krushnakant was traveling with others in one S.T. Bus bearing No.
G.Q.E. – 9445 on road from Ahmedabad to Unjha, and said S. T. Bus
was driven by opponent no. 1, with full speed and in rash and
negligent manner, when said S. T. Bus reached to village Shertha, in
between road of Girdhari Hotel and O.N.G.C. Patia, one truck bearing
No. R.N.Q. – 7563 was coming at an excessive speed, head on
collision, and as a result, husband of applicant no. 1 and father of
applicant nos. 2 and 3 of MACP no. 2035/1990 died on the spot and
claimant of MACP no. 2145/1990 received serious fracture injury,
whereas father of applicants No. 1 to 4 and husband of applicant no.
5 of MACP no. 2053/1990 died at very moment of said accident.
The
opponents have filed reply and produced relevant documents.
Thereafter, claims Tribunal has examined matter in para 10 in
respect to MACP no. 2145/90. Learned advocate Mr. DH Jayswal
appeared for appellant. In evidence of appellant vide exh 37, he
stated that being Eye Surgeon, he runs his own Eye Hospital, known
as Krishna Eye Hospital and Contact Lance Clinic at Anjali Cinema,
Ahmedabad was earning Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 12,000/- per month. The
applicant has produced certain documentary evidence i.e. F.I.R.
vide exh 39, Panchnama of scene of offence at Exh 40, Injury
Certificate at Exh. 41, a copy of receipt of Income Tax return of
year 1990 and copy of balance sheet of year 1990.
After
considering these documents, claims Tribunal has come to conclusion
that income of applicant was Rs. 10,000/- p.m. The disability
certificate is produced at Ex. 42 and with consent of both parties,
same is to be considered at 14% disability body as a whole. Thus,
monthly future loss of income would come to Rs. 1400/- per month,
per year it comes to Rs. 1400 x 12 = Rs. 16,800/-. Looking to age 45
years, 12 multiplier has been applied, which comes to Rs.
2,01,600/-. The claimant was remained as an indoor patient for
atleast two weeks and has been bed ridden for a long time.
Therefore, he is entitled for amount of Rs. 10,000/- under head of
actual loss of income, Rs. 6000/- for medicines and he is also
entitled for Rs. 5000/- for special diet and attendant charges as
claimant was confined to be for three months. In all, he is
entitled to Rs. 2,22,600/- with 11% interest and proportionate
costs.
Learned
advocate Mr. Prajapati submitted for pain, shock and suffering,
amount is not awarded by claims Tribunal. The tribunal has
considered actual loss for a period during which claimant was
remained bad ridden and that part has been taken into account. It is
necessary note that claimant was having injury as per disability
certificate produced at exh 42 28%, which has been reduced to 14%
and looking to age of 45 years, 12 multiplier has been rightly
applied. Why appellant has reduced disability with consent of other
side for that there is no discussion and reason given by claimant.
According
to my opinion, claims Tribunal has rightly awarded compensation,
which covered all kinds of head, for which claimant is entitled.
Therefore, no interference would require by this Court as this being
a just, reasonable and proper compensation awarded to claimant. The
contention raised by learned advocate Mr. Prajapati can not be
accepted and same is rejected.
Hence,
there is no substance in the present appeal. Accordingly, present
appeal is dismissed.
(H.K.RATHOD,
J)
asma
Top