Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
FA/5415/1998 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST
APPEAL No. 5415 of 1998
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 ?
=========================================================
ILIASBHAI
ISMAILBHAI SALAT - Appellant(s)
Versus
KAMRUN
NISA RIAZ MOHMMAD W/D RIAZ MOHAMMAD & 2 - Defendant(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MS
SNEHA A JOSHI for
Appellant(s) : 1,
UNSERVED-EXPIRED (N) for Defendant(s) :
1,
NOTICE SERVED for Defendant(s) : 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3, 1.2.4,
1.2.5, 1.2.6,1.2.7
MR KISHOR PRAJAPATI FOR MR MEHUL H RATHOD for
Defendant(s) : 2,
MR SHASHIKANT S GADE for Defendant(s) :
3,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 03/12/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. This
appeal has been filed against the judgment and award passed by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Palanpur in M.A.C.P. No.485/1989
dated 02.05.1998, whereby, the said claim petition was partly
allowed. By way of this appeal, the appellant has prayed for
enhancement of the amount of compensation.
2.
The facts in brief are that on 23.05.1989 while the appellant was
proceeding towards his garage by foot situated on the high-way road,
an auto-rickshaw bearing registration no. GRO-184, driven by
respondent no.1 herein, dashed him from the behind. As a result of
the said accident, the appellant sustained bodily injuries and he was
taken to the Hospital for necessary treatment. Thereafter, the
appellant filed the claim petition before the Tribunal claiming
compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. However, the same came to be partly
allowed by way of the impugned award. Hence, this appeal for
enhancement of the amount of compensation.
3. Heard
learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents
on record. The main submission of learned counsel for the appellant
is that the Tribunal has not properly assessed the income of the
appellant while calculating the amount of compensation. However, I do
not find much substance in the submission made by the learned counsel
since the Certificate (Exhibit-56) produced in support of the income
of the appellant is of a subsequent date. Therefore, the said
document cannot be taken into consideration. The Tribunal has awarded
the amount by assessing the monthly income of the appellant at
Rs.900/-. In the claim petition itself, the appellant has stated that
his monthly income was Rs.900/-.
4. Looking
to the facts of the case and the evidence produced on record, the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just, appropriate and legal.
The appellant has not made out any case for enhancing the amount of
compensation. I am in complete agreement with the reasonings given by
and the findings arrived at by the Tribunal in the impugned award and
hence, find no reasons to interfere with the same.
5. For
the foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.
[K.
S. JHAVERI, J.]
Pravin/*
Top