{"id":212211,"date":"2010-01-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-01-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shailesh-vs-kashiram-on-28-january-2010"},"modified":"2018-05-16T02:58:37","modified_gmt":"2018-05-15T21:28:37","slug":"shailesh-vs-kashiram-on-28-january-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shailesh-vs-kashiram-on-28-january-2010","title":{"rendered":"Shailesh vs Kashiram on 28 January, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Shailesh vs Kashiram on 28 January, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: H.K.Rathod,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nFA\/373\/1990\t 51\/ 51\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nFIRST\nAPPEAL No. 373 of 1990\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD    Sd\/-\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?    \n\t\t\t                 YES\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo be\n\t\t\treferred to the Reporter or not ?    YES\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?       \n\t\t\t                   YES\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?                                NO\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?                       \n\t\t\t                   NO\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nSHAILESH\nJ MEHTA - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nKASHIRAM\nGANGARAM & 5 - Defendant(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nNIRAV C THAKKAR for Appellant(s) : 1, \nMR ANAND L SHARMA, AGP for\nDefendant(s) : 1 - 2. \nMR HASMUKH THAKKER for Defendant(s) : 3, \nDS\nAFF.NOT FILED (R) for Defendant(s) : 4 - 5. \nMR N S TAHILRAMANI for\nDefendant(s) :\n6, \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 28\/01\/2010 \n\n \n\nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
1.\tHeard
\nlearned advocate Mr.Nirav C. Thakkar appearing on behalf of appellant
\n  claimant   Shailesh J. Mehta, learned AGP Mr. Anand L. Sharma
\nappearing on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 and 2   State Authorities,
\nlearned advocate Mr. Vicky Mehta for learned advocate Mr. Hasmukh
\nThakker appearing on behalf of Respondent No.3   United India
\nInsurance Company Limited and learned advocate Mr. N.S. Tahilramani
\nappearing on behalf of Respondent No.6   The Oriental Insurance
\nCompany Limited.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tThe
\npresent appeal is preferred by appellant claimant for enhancement of
\ncompensation worked out by Claims Tribunal, Bharuch. The claimant has
\nfiled Claim Petition No.591 of 1983 (Main) claiming compensation of
\nRs.5 lakhs from respondents.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tThe
\nshort facts of present case is that the accident took place on 7th
\nOctober, 1983 on National Highway No.8 near Sidhdheshwari Oil
\nFactory, Ankleshwar, at about 00-30 hours between Jeep Car
\nNo.GTI-7076 and Truck No.GTG-3348. The jeep car, at the material
\ntime, was driven by jeep driver Kashiram Gangaram, who is Respondent
\nNo.1. As a result of which, said accident had taken place. The
\nclaimant was working as Circle Police Inspector at Bharuch was also
\nreceived injuries in the said accident. The jeep driver Kashiram,
\nPolice Constable Sureshbhai Bhavanbhai and inmate of jeep were
\nreceived injuries. The said jeep car is of the ownership of I.G.P.,
\nState of Gujarat   Respondent No.2. It was insured with United
\nIndia Insurance Company Limited   Respondent No.3. The Truck
\nNo.GTG-3348 was in stationary condition as it had met with an
\naccident half an hour prior to present accident with Truck
\nNo.GTG-2221. Respondent No.4 is a driver of Truck No.GTG-3348 and
\nRespondent No.5 is owner of said truck and said truck was insured
\nwith Respondent No.6   The Oriental Insurance Company Limited.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tThe
\nclaimant Shri Mehta initially filed a petition for compensation of
\nRs.9,999\/-, which was subsequently enhanced upto Rs.3 lakhs and after
\nobtaining disability certificate, it was enhanced upto Rs.5 lakhs. It
\nis alleged that on 6th October 1983, Shri Mehta, Circle
\nPolice Inspector, Bharuch was allotted duty to chase one oil tanker
\ninvolved in dacoity of furnace oil and was in the pilot jeep
\nNo.GTI-7076. The said jeep was driven by Respondent No.1 while coming
\nfrom Ankleshwar to Bharuch side with an excessive speed, in a rash
\nand negligent manner and endangering human life, and at 00-30 hours
\non 7th October 1983, near Sidhdheshwari Oil Mills, it
\ndashed on rear side of Truck No.GTG-3348 standing on left side of
\nroad, without back-light or reflector. The said truck was kept by
\ntruck driver carelessly and without any sign either back parking
\nlight or reflectors and as a result of which, Jeep No.GTI-7076 dashed
\nwith back side of truck and claimant – Shri Mehta sustained injuries.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tThe
\nclaimant was initially removed to Civil Hospital, Bharuch but as
\nthere was no facility of Orthopedic Surgeon, he was removed to
\nhospital of Dr. Sheth where he was treated and discharged on 25th
\nOctober 1983. The plaster was removed on 22nd November
\n1983. In the opinion of Dr. Sheth, claimant had permanent
\ndisablement. There was continuous pain and therefore, in April 1984,
\nclaimant approached Orthopedic Surgeon Dr. Dave in Ankleshwar and
\nultimately, Dr. Dave advised him to go to Bombay under treatment of
\nDr. K.B. Chaubal. The claimant was operated upon in Bombay by Dr.
\nChaubal in the year 1984 and remained in hospital for 15 days and
\nthereafter, he had to go for follow-up treatment for 6 to 7 times in
\ntaxi. Thereafter, the second operation was performed by Dr. Chaubal
\nand claimant had to stay as an indoor patient for again 15 days and
\nhe had to go for follow-up treatment thrice. The claimant in all the
\nhospitals and for all the times required two persons with him as
\nattendants and he had to bear their expenses. The claimant had also
\nto spent heavily for operations, medicines and medical treatment. Dr.
\nDave gave him certificate about 60% permanent partial disablement and
\naccording to claimant, he is unable to walk without crutches and
\nunable to seat with cross legs and squatting. Total Earned Leaves
\nhave been spent by claimant which comes to 159 days which is a loss
\nof leaves. In short, total Rs.5 lakhs amount has been claimed with
\n12% interest. The present appeal is preferred by claimant claiming
\nRs.4,31,840\/- for the purpose of court fees and advocate’s fee.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tThe
\nClaims Tribunal, Bharuch has decided question of negligence on the
\nbasis of evidence i.e. 60% negligence of jeep driver – Kashiram and
\n40% negligence of Respondent No.4   driver Bhailalbhai Somabhai
\nTadvi. Respondent No.3   United India Insurance Company Limited of
\njeep where claimant was travelling having a limited liability of
\nRs.15,000\/- and rest of amount is to be recovered from Respondent
\nNos.1 and 2. The total amount of compensation which has been awarded
\nby claims tribunal comes to Rs.1,13,600\/-, the details of which have
\nbeen given at Page 36 of award of claims tribunal as under :\n<\/p>\n
\t The
\napplicant is therefore, entitled to claim compensation of
\nRs.1,13,600\/- as detailed below:\n<\/p>\n
Sr.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\tNo.\n<\/p>\n
Particulars<\/p>\n
Amount
\n\t\t\t(Rs.)<\/p>\n
1.<\/p>\n
Pain
\n\t\t\tshock and suffering, loss of amenities and enjoyment of life <\/p>\n
25,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
2.<\/p>\n
Expenses
\n\t\t\tof attendants <\/p>\n
2,750\/-\n<\/p>\n
3.<\/p>\n
Gratituous
\n\t\t\tservices rendered by the attendants<\/p>\n
2,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
4<\/span><\/p>\n
Actual
\n\t\t\teconomic loss by way of leave Salary <\/p>\n
7250\/-\n<\/p>\n
5.<\/p>\n
Transport
\n\t\t\tcharges for follow up <\/p>\n
4,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
6.<\/p>\n
Special
\n\t\t\tdiet, at Bharuch and at Bombay <\/p>\n
1,500\/-\n<\/p>\n
7.<\/p>\n
Medical
\n\t\t\tbills for medicines, Doctor’s fees, operation charges etc. <\/p>\n
28,100\/-\n<\/p>\n
8.<\/p>\n
Future
\n\t\t\teconomic loss <\/p>\n
36,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
9<\/span><\/p>\n
Compensation
\n\t\t\tfor future treatment if any, in USA as per Dr. Saraiya Ex.126.\n<\/p>\n
7,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
Total<\/p>\n
1,13,600\/-\n<\/p>\n
7.\tIn
\nlight of these facts, this Court has to consider only that in light
\nof injuries received by claimant whether amount of compensation which
\nhas been worked out by claims tribunal is just, proper and reasonable
\nor not ? And whether any scope for enhancement of compensation or not
\n?\n<\/p>\n
8.\tWhile
\ndetermining this question, it is necessary to note the evidence of
\nclaimant which has been given before claims tribunal, it has been
\ndiscussed and referred by claims tribunal in Para 15
\nwhich is quoted as under :\n<\/p>\n
 15.\t\tShri
\nMehta has stated that due to accident, he sustained injuries, he was
\ntaken to Civil Hospital, Bharuch, but as there was no facilities for
\nOrthopaedic surgeon, he was taken to Dr. Sheth Hospital wherein he
\nwas indoor patient from 7\/10\/1983 to 25\/10\/1983.  He was advised not
\nto do movement for six moths.  As he did not feel any improvement, he
\nconsulted Orthopaedic Surgeon Dr. Dave at Ankleshwar and Dr. Dave
\nadvised him to approach Dr. Dholakia at Bombay.  Or5thopaedic Surgeon
\nDr. Dave informed the applicant that he may not be cured and so, the
\napplicant approached Dr. Chaubal and first operation was performed in
\nJune, 1984 and Second operation was performed in September, 1985.
\nThe second operation was performed for the purpose of tightening the
\nligaments.  He had also taken physiotherapy exercise in Shevashram
\nHospital, Bharuch and has also purchased for the purpose of exercise
\nkeep fit cycle.  At the time of the accident, he had to take 159 days
\nleave.  When the first operation was performed by Dr. Chaubal, he had
\ntaken 54 days leave and for the second operation he had taken 45 days
\nleave.  In 1983 he was drawing Rs.1300\/- and in 1984 he was drawing
\nRs.1400\/- and in 1985 he was drawing Rs.1700\/-.  According to him, on
\nthe date of the deposition, his salary ins Rs.2700\/- plus Rs.450\/- =
\n3150\/-.  After the first operation, he had gone for follow-up
\ntreatment for six times from Bharuch to Bombay, to Dr. Chaubal and
\nfor each trip, he had spent Rs.1200\/- taxi fare.  Receipts have been
\nproduced at mark 41\/4\/1 to 41\/4\/6 issued by Musa Ahmed Patel and the
\ntaxi Number is GRV 8025.  Musa Ahmed Patel, the person who has issued
\nthe receipts has not been examined as witness to substantiate these
\ndocuments.  After the second operation he had gone thrice for
\nfollow-up treatment; once he had gone in the 1st Class,
\nfrom Bharuch to Bombay and for three tickets, he had spent about
\nRs.230\/- to Rs.240\/-. and the tickets are produced at mark 63\/2.
\nThere are from Bharuch to Bombay Central, each Rs.76\/-.  At Bharuch
\nwhen he was indoor patient in Dr. Sheth’s Hospital, two attendants
\nserved him, and he had to spend Rs.40\/- per day, in the same way,
\nafter first operation at Bombay, two persons stayed with him and he
\nhad to spend Rs.60\/- per day ad the second operation in 1985 two
\npersons stayed with him and he had to spend Rs.75\/- per day.\n<\/p>\n
\tHe
\nhad also to take special diet at Bharuch  as well as at Bombay and at
\nBharuch, per day he spend Rs.25\/- and at Bombay Rs.30\/- per day.  For
\nthe treatment, medicines, Doctor’s fees, he had spent Rs.32,000\/-.
\nHe had purchased the ‘Keep fit cycle’ for Rs.1200\/-.  As per the
\nadvice of Dr. Saraiya the applicant may have to go for future
\noperation abroad (Ex.126). and for lodging and Boarding in a hotel,
\n100 Dollars per day.  He has also stated that he was shortening of
\nleg by 3\/4  and it gives continuous pain.  He is unable to sit with
\ncross-legged and squatting.  He is a direct recruit at P.S. I. in
\n1982.  he has been given cash and certificates, 18 rewards.
\nAccording to him, the direct recruit P.S.I. Can become Dy. S. P.
\nafter nine years and as Dy. S. P. he can get Rs.3500\/- per month and
\nhe can become D.S.P. after 8 to 9 years and he can get Rs.4500\/-.
\nAccording to him, the age of superannuation is 50 years, but he can
\nget the job in private sector as security officer and he can get
\nRs.3500\/- to Rs.4000\/- per month.  At the age of 51 years, 55, and
\n58, for the purpose of extension of service, physical fitness
\ncertificate from the medical Board is to be produced, and if he is
\nphysically unfit, extension is not given.  He has also stated that on
\n20\/7\/88 seven police inspectors have been promoted as Deputy
\nSuperintendent of Police and they all are junior to him.  Shri T. M.
\nParmar is junior to him.  He is promoted as Dy. S. P. Surat.  Shri E.
\nM. Khan is Junior to him.  He is promoted as Dy. S. P.  No reasons
\nare given as to why he is not promoted as Dy. S. P.  He is also not
\ncommunicated any adverse remarks.  In the cross-examination by the L.
\nA. Shri. Mamlatdarna the applicant has stated that he has received
\nRs.22,000\/- from his Insurance Co.  He has examined Dr. Dave as his
\nwitness.  The accident occurred during the course of employment and
\nhe had to take leave at his credit.  In the cross-examination by L.
\nA. Shri. Gandhi, the applicant stated that Dr. Sheth is one of the
\nleading Orthopaedic Surgeon in Bharuch, and he is senior to Dr. Dave.
\n He has stated that he has no confidence in the treatment of Dr.
\nChaubal.  He admitted that when he resumed duty, he has produced the
\nphysical fitness certificate.  He was transferred from Bharuch, on
\nthe same post in other city, having more responsibility.  He has not
\ninformed about any notes by way of adverse remarks.  He admitted that
\nhe has no evidence to show that he is not promoted as Dy. S. P.
\nbecause of these injuries.  He denied that Shri. T. M. Parmar who is
\npromoted as Dy. S. P. is of backward class.  He admitted that Shri.
\nM. E. Khan promoted as Dy. S. P. is Muslim, of minority community.
\nHe has not filed any writ petition in the Hon’ble High Court of
\nGujarat for promotion as Dy. S. P.  He has also admitted that he is
\npresently continued in the active service on the same Post.\n<\/p>\n
9.\tThe
\nclaimant has also examined Dr. Dipak Dave vide Ex.122 which has been
\ndiscussed by claims tribunal in Para 16, which is
\nquoted as under :\n<\/p>\n
 16.\t\tThe
\napplicant has also examined in support of his case Dr. Dipak Dave at
\nEx.122.  In 1984 the applicant approached for his knee injury.  He
\nhad completely unstable and deformed right knee joint.  The applicant
\nwas advised to approach Dr. Chaubal at Bombay.  He is esteemed
\nwill-known Orthopaedic surgeon at par with Dr. Dholakia.  Dr. Dave
\nassisted Dr. Chaubal, on 11\/6\/1984 in repairing ligament of the
\napplicant.  Middle semi-lunar certiledge of right knee joint was
\nremoved and critiat ligament was repaired.  Thereafter, second
\noperation was performed and laternal co-lateral ligament was repaired
\nand follow-up treatment was given by Dr. Dave under instructions of
\nDr. Chaubal.  The letter addressed y Dr. Chaubal is Ex.123.  Dr. Dave
\nhas also issued the disability certificate Exh.124 showing the
\nfollowing:\n<\/p>\n
\tLateral
\n\tinstability, and tenderness right knee.\n<\/p>\n
\tHe
\n\thas shortening of ? inch, of right lower extremity.\n<\/p>\n
\tMuscular
\n\twaisting on the right side by 0.7 inches <\/p>\n
\tHe
\n\talso has developed arthritis on the left side of his body.\n<\/p>\n
\tHe
\n\talso has lumber spondylosis.\n<\/p>\n
\tDr.\n<\/p>\n
Dave estimated permanent partial disability at 60%.  it may be
\npointed out that as against this, medical board has assessed
\ndisability of 50%. as per Exh.119 Dr. Dave stated that in future,
\nthere will be future deterioration due to secondary arthritis and
\nlongevity of life also decrease.  Dr. Saraiya has sent his opinion
\nfrom America on reference of applicant’s case to him and he has
\nestimated the amount of expenditure.  The letter is produced at
\nEx.126.  In the cross-examination by the learned Advocate Shri
\nMamlatdarna, Dr. Dave stated that in the certificate, he has nowhere
\nmentioned that he assisted Dr. Chaubal, in performing operation on
\nthe applicant.  In the certificate dt. 26\/3\/1986 he has mentioned
\nthat applicant was treated as outdoor patient.  In cross-examination
\nby the L. A. Shri. Gandhi, Doctor admitted that the applicant is a
\npolice officer in Gujarat State and he is in active service, as the
\npolice officer.  He has resumed duty under his advice.  Dr. denied
\nthat after the applicant resumed duty, he did not complain to him
\nabout the pain, disability and the discomfort.  Dr. Dave has also
\nadmitted the clinical findings of Ex.119 arrived at by the Medical
\nboard are the same as per his finding, but there is difference in
\npercentage of disability.  He assessed at 60%. and the medial Board
\nassessed at 50%.  The applicant is able to walk on the even ground
\nwithout any support.\n<\/p>\n
10.\t\tThe
\nclaimant has also examined Shri K.S. Zala at Ex.19 as discussed in
\nPara 17 which is quoted as under :\n<\/p>\n
 17.\t\tThe
\napplicant has also examined Shri K. S. Zala at Ex.109, with a view to
\nshow that after retirement as Dy. S. P. they are employed as security
\nofficer.  Shri Zala has retired as Dy. S. P. and after retirement on
\nand from 1\/4\/1986 he is serving as Security officer in Mihir Textile
\nat a monthly salary of Rs.3000\/- plus bonus.  He has produced the
\ncertificate Ex.110 for the month of October, 1987
\nfrom Mihil Textile showing that he gets Rs.3,000\/- per month.  He
\ncould not say as to whether, after retirement, applicant would not
\nget such a private service.  He may get such private service.\n<\/p>\n
11.\t\tThe
\nmedical certificate issued by Civil Hospital is produced at Ex.90
\nwhich shows the following injuries as referred in Para 18
\nwhich is quoted as under :\n<\/p>\n
 18.\t\tThe
\npolicy of the Jeep car No.GTI 7076 is produced at Ex.60 and Ex.86 and
\nEx.87.  The medical certificate issued by the Civil Hospital is
\nproduced at Ex.90 and it shows the following:\n<\/p>\n
Bleeding
\n\tfrom nose wound.  C.L.W. ? CM x ? CM x ? CM at Haro-labial
\n\tjuncture.\n<\/p>\n
CLW
\n\t? x ? CM at left side of nose.\n<\/p>\n
Swelling
\n\tright knee right let and upper 1\/3rd of Rt. Leg.\n<\/p>\n
X-ray
\n\tRt. Knee shows, crack Fracture of right upper 1\/3rd
\n\ttibia.\n<\/p>\n
Blunt
\n\tinjury over chest, with tenderness.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe
\napplicant has also produced the leave salary certificate for the
\nperiod from 7\/10\/1983 to 5\/12\/1983 (Ex.95), 8\/6\/1984 to 31\/7\/1984
\n(Ex.94), 16\/9\/1985 to 31\/10\/1985 (Ex.93) and he resumed duty on and
\nfrom 1\/11\/1985.  The salary certificate for January, 1987 is at Ex.96
\nand the salary under the revised scale 2000-3200, his pay is fixed in
\nthe revised scale at Rs.2120\/-. And the date of next increment is dt.
\n1\/9\/1986 i.e. Rs.2180\/- and on 1\/9\/1987 Rs.2240\/- (Ex.107).  He has
\nproduced salary certificate of February, 1988 Ex.106 in the salary is
\nshown as Rs.2240\/- Plus D. A. Rs.291\/-.  Rest are the allowance only,
\nshowing the gross total Rs.3211\/- and after deducting Rs.510\/- Net
\nRs.2701\/-.  The witness examined on behalf of the applicant Shri.
\nZala after his retirement, serves as Security Officer, he has
\nproduced the emoluments certificate for October, 1987 (Ex.110)
\nshowing the gross earning of Rs.2971=40 ps. and net payment of
\nRs.2706\/-.  Ex.119 is the report of the Medical board, in respect of
\nthe applicant showing the disability of 50% as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t Shri.\n<\/p>\n
S. J. Mehta, P. I. had been examined by the standing medical board,
\nCivil Hospital, Ahmedabad certificate No.SMB\/C\/IP\/1135\/88 dt. 8\/12\/87
\nis enclosed herewith in duplicate, as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t At
\npresent, Fracture tibia upper end with terminal 2nd degree
\nrestricted movement, upper ligaments instability and denu farum of 10
\n& Lypoasthsis in infra patellar region.  Wasting of guadrings
\n1\/2  and lib shortening of 3\/4 .\n<\/p>\n
\tPt.\n<\/p>\n
Cannot sit cross legged and cannot sit in squatting position.
\nPermanent Disability assessed at 50% (fifty percent.).\n<\/p>\n
\tThe
\napplicant has also produced discharge card at Ex.120 issued by Dr.
\nChaubal and the injury is shown in the diagrams.  Dr. Deepak Dave has
\nalso issued the certificate at Ex.124. dt. 26\/3\/1986 showing the
\ninjuries and the disability.  He examined the applicant in April 1984
\nand found the following.\n<\/p>\n
\tHe
\nhad an absolute unstable knee joint, with depressed fracture of
\ntibial condyle and all the 4 ligaments were cut i.e. (1) Medical
\nCollateral-ligament (2) Lateral Collateral ligament (3) Medical
\nsemilunar cartilage tear (4) Both cruciate ligaments were also torn.
\nAt this particular juncture, he was unable to walk without support.\n<\/p>\n
\tAt
\npresent, I have examined him and found that he has lateral
\ninstability and pain, His movements are also restricted which will be
\nfurther restricted after surgery.  He has shortening by about 3\/4
\nand muscle wasting of ? thigh by 0.7.\n<\/p>\n
\tAlso
\ndue to transfer of weight of his body, on the normal limb, will
\nresult in early arthritis of normal hip and knee and lumber
\nspondyloses.\n<\/p>\n
\tHis
\npermanent final disability is put up at 60%.\n<\/p>\n
\tHe
\nhas produced in bunch, the medical bills and Doctor’s receipts.  They
\nare not exhibited as the authors of the documents are not examined.\n<\/p>\n
12.\t\tThe
\nfinding given by claims tribunal while considering evidence on record
\nin determining compensation in respect of present claimant has been
\ndiscussed in Para 23, which is quoted as under :\n<\/p>\n
 23.\t\tAs
\nper the evidence adduced in the matter, the applicant was serving as
\nPolice Inspector at Bharuch.  There was dacoity of 10,000 liters of
\nfurnace oil in respect of Oil Tanker No.GTB 4917 and the dacoits had
\nfled away with the tanker towards Surat side and this information was
\ngiven to the applicant by P.S.I. Gohil and the applicant had to
\nfollow- the same to chase the Tanker.  The applicant had therefore,
\nproceeded in a Pilot Jeep car GTI 7076 with staff.  It was dirven by
\nKashinath Gangaram opponent no.1.  The Tanker was already chased near
\n Garib Nawaz Hotel and while returning the Jeep, dashed on the side
\nof the stationery truck No.GTG 3348.  This truck was stationery on
\naccount of the previous accident with another truck no. GTG 2221.
\nThe applicant sustained injuries.  The applicant was initially
\ntreated in Dr. Sheth Hospital, where he was indoor patient for 18
\ndays in Dr. Sheth Hospital.  He was advised to remain at him for six
\nmonths.  But, as he did not feel better, he approached Dr. Dave who
\ndirected him to approach Orthopaedic Surgeon at Bombay and ultimately
\nhe approached Dr. Chaubal and he was first operated in 1984 and he
\nremained in the Hospital for 15 days.  Thereafter, he had to go for
\nfollow up treatment 6 to 7 times.  He has produced the receipt 41\/4\/1
\nto 41\/4\/6 each showing the payment of Rs.1200\/-  to Musa Ahmed Patel.
\n Bombay to Bharuch to and fro. Musa Ahmed Patel is not examined to
\nprove these receipts.  The applicant is bound to prove at least these
\ndocuments of taxi fare by examining the author of the documents.  He
\nhas not led any evidence to prove the payment of rs.1200\/- taxi
\ncharges to Musa Ahmed Patel, Bombay Trips for six times.  These are
\nnot the medical bills or vouchers the amount of which can be allowed
\nwithout examining the author of the documents.  The medial bills and
\nvouchers are allowed, because of the prolonged treatment, sickness
\nand the medicines were prescribed, as obtaining of bills and vouchers
\nof such items, when injured is lying in the hospital in the grave
\ncondition, cannot be expected.  As far as these taxi bills are
\nconcerned, the applicant is required to adduce clear and cogent
\nevidence by proving the actual payment.   He has to establish that he
\nhad travelled six times to and fro in the taxi and so, on this count,
\nreasonable amount of 1st Class train fare can be awarded.
\nSecond operation was performed in 1985 and he was indoor patient for
\n15 days.  Compensation on account of expenses of the relatives, as
\nattendants, cant be worked as under:  For his stay in Dr. Sheth
\nHospital at Rs.40\/- per day; Rs.720\/- and for first operation at
\nBombay Rs.60\/- per day Rs.900\/-; for second operation 15 days,
\nRs.75\/- per day, Rs.1125\/-; Hence Rs.2745\/- (Rs.720+900+1125 = 2745)
\nSay Rs.2750\/- is awarded.  The applicant had to take leave because of
\nhis prolonged sickness, operations and he was on leave from 7\/10\/1983
\nto 5\/12\/1983 as per Ex.95 for about tow months and as per the Slip
\nmark 84\/1, for the month of August, 1984, his emoluments are
\nRs.1593=80 ps.  The applicant has deposed in his evidence that in
\n1983 he was getting Rs.1300\/- per month, in 1984 he was getting
\nRs.1400\/- per month and in 1985 Rs.1700\/- per month, and so he is
\nentitled to be compensated for the leave salary taken by him.  For
\nthe year 1983 he is entitled to Rs.2600\/-, then 1984 he was on leave
\nfrom 8\/6\/84 to 31\/7\/1984 and so he is entitled to Rs.2100\/- and for
\nthe year he was on leave from 16\/91985 to 31\/10\/1985 and he has
\nresumed duty on 1\/11\/1985 as per Ex.93.  He is therefore entitled to
\nRs.2550\/-.  Hence, on this count he is entitled to Rs.7250\/-.
\n(Rs.2600+2100+2550=7250\/-).\n<\/p>\n
\tAs
\nregards the Transport Charges, as I have said earlier, he has not
\nproved the taxi fare paid by him.\n<\/p>\n
\tHe
\nhas produced three tickets of 1st Class showing the
\npayment of Rs.240\/-.  Looking to the injuries, sustained by him and
\nthe treatment taken by him, and the treatment taken by him, he must
\nhave gone to Bombay for follow-up treatment on few occasions and so
\non the head of transport charges, he may be awarded Rs.4000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
\tOn
\naccount of special diet, looking to the fact that he was indoor
\npatient for about 48 days, and he was also operated twice, and so on
\nthe count of special diet Rs.1500\/-.\n<\/p>\n
\tFor
\nmedicines, bills, vouchers, Doctor’s fees, etc. he has produced the
\nbills.  The bills are not admitted.  He has also not proved the bills
\nby calling authors of the bills but as I have said earlier, as per
\nthe decision of the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court, reported in
\n1987 A.C.J. p.519 (supra) even though no bills, no evidence for
\npurchase medicines, blood, Doctor’s fee, fruits, and other items, are
\nproduced, but if the claimant satisfies that he had incurred
\nexpenses, then that amount is to be allowed.  He has produced the
\nbills worth Rs.12,263=15 ps. (mark 3\/1 to 3\/19) and about Rs.15,860\/-
\n(mark 41\/3\/1 to 41\/3\/49 and 41\/7) cycle bill.  He is therefore
\nentitled to Rs.28,100\/-.\n<\/p>\n
\tOn
\naccount of gratuitous service rendered by the attendants, he is
\nentitled to Rs.2,000\/- as per the decision reported in 1979 A.C.J.
\n264 (supra).  As regards the future economic loss, he had, as per the
\nopinion of the Medical Board, Ex.119, 50% disability and as per the
\ncertificate of Dr. Dave 60% disability.  He has admitted in his own
\nevidence in cross-examination that he is in the active service on the
\nsame post even after the accident, he is given the charge in the
\nCity, bigger than Bharuch.  It is not the case that because of this
\ndisablement, he could not work as C. P. I.  He has subsequently
\nstated that seven persons who are Junior to him, are promoted Dy. S.
\nP.  He has not produced any order showing the promotion, to
\nsubstantiate his say nor he has examined any of them.  He has also
\nadmitted that he is not communicated any adverse remarks nor he has
\nbeen informed that he is not promoted on account of the injuries, and
\nso in view of the evidence and clear admission by the applicant
\nhimself, the ruling relied upon by the L. A. Shri. Mehta, for the
\napplicant 1981 A. C. J. p. 53 (Niranjan Ambalal Patel (SUPRA), is not
\napplicable.  The applicant has not adduced any clear, cogent and
\nunimpeachable evidence showing that the Government has decided or
\nresolved not to promote him to the Higher cadre because of the
\ninjuries sustained by him and\/or because of the disability.  On the
\ncontrary, the evidence is otherwise, that he is continued in the same
\npost.  He is not given any other light Job., as per the decision of
\n22 G. L. T. p.63 (supra) relied upon by L. A. Shri. Gandhi.  In the
\ncase, the claimant was the P.S.I. and he had also 50% disability.
\nEven his chances for promotion were affected and in that case, the
\nfuture economic loss was assessed at Rs.2400\/- per year and 12
\nmultipliers were given.  In the case of the present applicant from
\nhis evidence itself, there is no loss of earning capacity.  Eventhen,
\ntaking this case as the basis, if the future economic loss is
\nassessed at Rs.200\/- per month, the annual loss would be Rs.2400\/-
\nand looking to his age, and in view of the decision of the Hon’ble
\nSupreme Court of India 24 G. L. T. (SC) page.55 Smt. Jyotsna Dey &
\nOrs. Vs. State of Assam & Ors. 15 multiplier would be applied to
\nthe present case.  The future economic loss would be worked out to
\nRs.2400 x 15 = Rs.36,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
\tFor
\nfuture operation, as per the letter of Dr. Saraiya, Ex.126, the
\napplicant may have to go for future operation, at abroad, and so on
\nthis count, he has prayed for Rs.10,000\/-.  This is only imaginary,
\nbut as it is supported by letter of Dr. Saraiya, Ex.126, the said
\namount may be awarded on this count and on this count, he is awarded
\nRs.7,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe
\napplicant had to undergo two operations at Bombay and treatment at
\nBharuch.  He was indoor patient approximately for Rs.48 days and he
\nhad to take leave approximately for 160 days and as per the Judgment
\nof Babu Mansa Vs. Ahmedabad Municipality 1978 A.C.J. p. 485,
\nRs.15,000\/- were given for pain and suffering, and he had fracture of
\nright leg, insertion of nail, indoor patient for four months,
\nshortening of leg and permanent disability.  In the present case also
\nthe applicant had fractures of tibia upper end and he had also
\nshortening of let by 3\/4  Inch and limping, unable to squat and sit
\ncross-legged.  He cannot run, and the fall in the value of money,
\nleaves to the continuous re-assessment of the award on this count.
\nIt would be quite reasonable to award him on this count of pain,
\nshock and suffering Rs.25,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
13.\t\tIn
\nlight of aforesaid facts as discussed by claims tribunal whether
\namount of compensation which has been awarded in respect of each head
\nis found to be just and proper or not ?\n<\/p>\n
14.\t\tLearned
\nAGP Mr. Sharma appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 and 2
\nsubmitted that there is no loss of future earning to claimant,
\nbecause, he produced fitness certificate after his treatment was over
\nand thereafter, he was taken on job and he worked upto retirement and
\nhis promotion is not adversely affected because of injuries received
\nby claimant and there is no evidence shown by claimant before claims
\ntribunal that Government has decided or resolved not to promoted him
\nto higher cadre because of injuries sustained by him or because of
\ndisability. According to him, on the contrary, evidence is otherwise
\nthat he was continued in said post and no light work was given to
\nhim. Therefore, he submitted that there is no loss of earning
\ncapacity because he received injury during the course of employment,
\nbut, remained in service and received salary which has been revised
\nupto the end of service. Therefore, learned AGP Mr. Sharma submitted
\nthat claims tribunal has rightly examined matter on the basis of
\nevidence on record and details reasoning is given by claims tribunal
\nand amount in respect of each head properly assessed by claims
\ntribunal as well as medical evidence has been considered, but,
\ndocuments in respect of medical papers including medical receipts and
\nmedical bills are not exhibited, because, authors of documents are
\nnot examined by claimant, therefore, claims tribunal has properly
\nconsidered evidence on record, injuries caused to claimant as well as
\nopinion of Medical Board as 50% permanent disability to claimant,
\ntherefore, no error is committed by claims tribunal in deciding claim
\npetition filed by claimant, hence, no interference in required by
\nthis Court. He also submitted that claims tribunal has also rightly
\nconsidered income of claimant as in the year 1983 at the time of
\naccident, claimant was drawing Rs.1300\/- per month salary and in the
\nyear of 1984, claimant was drawing   Rs.1500\/- per month salary and
\nin the year of 1985, claimant was drawing Rs.1700\/- per month salary
\nand on the date of deposition, claimant was drawing salary Rs.2700\/-
\n+ Rs.450\/- = Rs.3150\/-. Therefore, on that basis, future loss of
\nincome Rs.200\/- has been rightly considered by claims tribunal while
\ncalculating loss of future earning in favour of claimant, even for
\nthat also, no error is committed by claims tribunal and 15 multiplier
\nhas been rightly applied looking to age of claimant. He further
\nsubmitted that claims tribunal has also awarded some amount for
\nfuture operation and accordingly, Rs.25,000\/- also properly assessed
\nfor pain, shock and suffering. Therefore, no interference is required
\nby this Court for enhancement as claimed by claimant.\n<\/p>\n
15.\t\tLearned
\nadvocate Mr. Nirav C. Thakkar appearing on behalf of appellant
\nclaimant Shri S.J. Mehta submitted that in the year of 1985, claimant
\nwas drawing salary of Rs.3150\/- per month which has not been taken
\ninto account by claims tribunal while considering 50% disability
\nfound by Medical Board which has been accepted by claims tribunal,
\nbut, compensation is not worked out on that basis. He also submitted
\nthat a long treatment having more than two operations remaining as an
\nindoor patient as well as one operation at Ankleshwar and another
\noperation at Bombay and frequently going for follow-up treatment, for
\nthat, amount of compensation for pain, shock and suffering awarding
\nRs.25,000\/- is on very much lower side. He submitted that claimant
\nhas to remain unable to enjoy complete life as it was enjoyed prior
\nto accident and due to that inability, may be he was remained
\ncontinue in service, but, his physical defect occurred because of
\naccident also remained with him, so, as a Circle Police Inspector, he
\nwas not able to work hard and effectively, therefore, it is resulted
\ninto denial of promotion to claimant as seven juniors were promoted
\neven though his case was not considered for promotion, because of
\ndisablement.  He submitted that even after retirement also, claimant
\ncan get job as a Security Officer in any private organization even
\nthough future prospect is also lost due to injuries. The medical
\nbills, receipts from Doctors though produced, but, not exhibited
\nbecause, person means authors has not been examined. Therefore, that
\namount has not been awarded by claims tribunal to claimant. The
\nexpenses which has been occurred for attending Doctors visited
\nfrequently at Ankleshwar, Bharuch and Bombay as well as expenses of
\ntwo attendants who remained with claimant was also not properly
\nassessed by claims tribunal. The follow up treatment for six times
\nfrom Bharuch to Bombay before Dr. Chaubal and for each trip, he was
\nhaving expenses of taxi fare and because of he was not able to
\nproduce receipts from taxi driver of those trips, that amount has
\nbeen ignored and not granted by claims tribunal. Therefore, he
\nsubmitted that compensation which has been worked out by claims
\ntribunal in conservative manner and not calculated being a
\nbeneficiary law which has been applied in case of claimant and even
\nclaims tribunal has not considered that claimant has shortening of
\n3\/4 inch of right lower extremity because of injuries. The promotion
\nin the post of Dy.S.P. has not been received by claimant though seven
\nPolice Inspectors have been promoted as Dy.S.P. on 20th
\nJuly 1988 those who were juniors to claimant. The claims tribunal has
\nalso committed an error in considering fitness certificate produced
\nby claimant at the time of joining duty, but, that does not mean that
\ninjury which has been caused being a permanent disability is fully
\ncured by passage of time. The Doctor had certified 60% permanent
\ndisability and Medical Board had certified 50% permanent disability.
\nHe also submitted that Rs.200\/- future permanent loss has been
\nwrongly calculated which is on lower side and therefore, claims
\ntribunal has committed gross error in not properly appreciating Dr.
\nDave’s evidence as well as medical certificate given by Civil
\nHospital and report of Medical Board Ex.119. The injury received by
\nclaimant has been disclosed and described before claims tribunal,
\neven though, it has not been properly appreciated by claims tribunal,
\ntherefore, according to his submission, claimant is entitled a
\nsubstantial amount of enhancement.\n<\/p>\n
16.\t\tTherefore,
\nlearned advocate Mr. Nirav C. Thakkar is relied upon one decision of
\nDivision Bench of this Court in case of Mahendrakumar Manilal
\nPatel & Anr. v. Ramjibhai Dalsibhai Chaudhary & Ors.<\/a>
\nreported in 2006(1) GLR 637,
\nwhere, identical case has been decided by Division Bench of this
\nCourt as one PSI who received injuries during the course of
\nemployment and his one leg has been amputed upto knee. The Division
\nBench of this Court has enhanced compensation which comes to
\nRs.4,99,800\/- against award passed by claims tribunal. He relied upon
\nPara 9, 11 and 13
\nwith Head Note B and C,
\nwhich are quoted as under :\n<\/p>\n
 Head
\nNote (B)   Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (LIX of 1988)
\nSec. 168   Compensation payable in disablement would be higher than
\nin fatal cases   Retionale stated.\n<\/p>\n
Head
\nNote (C)
\n  Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (LIX of 1988)   Sec. 168
\nCompensation for disablement   Victim a P.S.I., aged 34 years
\nsuffering 70% disablement   Officer would lose chance of
\naccelerated promotions, monetary rewards for exemplary work etc. –
\nThese
\naspects to be taken into account   Compensation for loss of future
\nearning enhanced   On facts, compensation for pain, shock and
\nsuffering enhanced to Rs.1,25,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
9.\t\tThe
\nSupreme Court said in R.D.Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt.
\nLtd. and others<\/a> (1995 ACJ 366) that while fixing the amount of
\ncompensation payable to a victim of an accident,  damages have to be
\nassessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages, in
\nother words, pecuniary loss and non pecuniary loss. Pecuniary damages
\nare those which are capable of being calculated in terms of money
\nwhereas non pecuniary damages are incapable of being assessed by
\narithmetical calculations. Pecuniary damages include (i) medical
\nexpenses, (ii) loss of earning or other profits, (iii) loss of
\nearning capacity or incapability in the labour market and (iv)
\nmaterial loss because of the injuries which leave him with setback
\nfor the rest of his life. Non pecuniary damages include (i) damages
\nfor pain, shock and suffering, already suffered and\/or likely to be
\nsuffered in future, (ii) loss of amenities of life which may include
\ninability to walk, run or sit, (iii) damages for the loss of
\nexpectancy of life on account of injury, as on account
\nof injury, the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened,\n<\/p>\n
(iv) damages for inconvenience, discomfort, disappointment,
\nfrustration and mental stress etc. This groups of categories may not
\nbe exhaustive. Facts of the case, statutes, judicial pronouncements,
\nexperience and innovation may point out further heads\/ sub heads for
\napplication in case(s) coming before the
\nCourt for adjudication. It is settled principle that in disablement
\ncases, compensation payable is higher than in fatal cases, since it
\nis the claimant himself who utilizes compensation
\namount and it is he who has to suffer the impact of accident
\nthroughout his remaining life. [See: Bhagwan Das v. State of Himachal
\nPradesh & Ors. (1994 ACJ 702)]. The extent of compensation
\ndepends on the extent of disablement, its duration and consequences
\non the life of a victim, details of which may vary from case to case.
\nWhile assessing the damages, Court may give the same head-wise or by
\nway of global figure, but sine-qua-non is `just’ compensation
\nand also not to award compensation which amounts to unjust
\nenrichment.\n<\/p>\n
11.\t\tAdverting
\nto the case under discussion, keeping in
\nmind that it is a case of personal injury, for assessment of proper
\ndamages, evidence adduced by the parties has to be clearly analyzed
\nand understood. Accident took place on 10.8.1983. Claimant, at  the
\ntime of accident, was at the threshold of his career. He was 34 year
\nold working as Police Sub Inspector. The injuries which he suffered
\ndue to the accident rendered him helpless and crippled for the rest
\nof his life. Requirement of Police force is perfect physical fitness,
\nalways available for movement and acts on which depends his
\npromotions and post superannuation life. After long treatment, his
\nleft leg below knee is amputed.  He had suffered other injuries and
\nfracture on left hand also. Therefore, apart from amputation of left
\nleg below knee, he remained under plaster for these injuries, treated
\nin various hospitals, as indoor patient from 10.8.1983 to 7.10.1983,
\nthereafter outdoor patient for further treatment, permanent partial
\ndisability to the extent of 70% due to imputation of leg, unable to
\nmove without crutches, thereafter with artificial leg and unable
\nto work with left hand, super condylar fracture bunerus (left)
\nfracture, unable to walk fast, climb, drive vehicles and take part in
\nsports and outside investigations, parades,
\ntherefore, all round handicap. These injuries caused him great pain,
\nshock, physical discomfiture, loss of pleasure and amenities of life.
\nDoctor states that artificial limb will have to be replaced after two
\nyears, eight times in fifteen years. It was contended that claimant
\ncould change artificial limb at lower cost from Jaipur, therefore,
\nclaim for higher compensation for future replacements is not
\njustified. We fail to understand this submission. Fact remains that
\nartificial limb requires replacement after
\ntwo years. In case better and suitable artificial limb is available
\nat any other place, claimant can use the same. Further, it was
\ncontended that claim for compensation under
\nthe head of pain, shock and suffering is not justified.
\nAgain, this submission cannot be accepted.
\nAt the cost of repetition, it is stated
\nthat claimant suffered extensive wound of size 15 cms. x 10 cms. over
\nleft leg with muscles exposed and crushed with no movement and
\nsensation, therefore, it was amputed on
\n10.8.1983 below knee, plaster applied to it, other fracture on left
\nhand. He must have really suffered mental agony, pain and shock. He
\nalso suffered physical discomfiture and
\nloss of pleasures and amenities of life. He spent on medicines,
\nnursing, lodging and boarding, cost of two attendants, for special
\ndiet, conveyance expenses, loss of salary and loss of future
\nearnings. It is contended that claimant has not suffered these
\nlosses, therefore not entitled for claim, he did not suffer loss of
\nsalary and loss of promotions since he was promoted upto the rank of
\nDy.S.P., future loss is not justified, since employment after
\nsuperannuation is not available to him.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn
\nthis accident, claimant suffered following injuries,  medical
\ncertificate issued by Dr.K.S.Shah, Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad (Ex.50):\n<\/p>\n
(1)\tSupertie
\nSlab over left lower limb from indoor extensive wound over left leg
\nsize 15 cm x 10 cm muscles exposed, muscles crushed.\n<\/p>\n
Tenderness
\non skin on lower part of wound. There was no movement and no
\nsensation.\n<\/p>\n
Tibia
\nfibula below knee amputation was done on 10.8.83 at 11:30 a.m.<\/p>\n
(2)\tSupertie
\nplaster over left upper limb from indoor supra condlyoar fracture
\nhumerus left.\n<\/p>\n
(3)\tAbrasion
\nover left frontal region size 1-1\/2 x 1 .\n<\/p>\n
\t\tAfter
\nconsidering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the
\nparties, Claims Tribunal allowed compensation under different heads,
\nnamely, (i) Rs.75,000\/- (pain, shock and suffering),\n<\/p>\n
(ii) Rs.3,000\/- (medicines), (iii) Rs.8,000\/- (nursing costs), (iv)
\nRs.3,000\/- (special diet), (v) Rs.13,000 (conveyance expenses), (vi)
\nRs.28,000\/- (loss of salary),  (vii) Rs.12,000\/- (expenses for buying
\nlimbs in future) and (viii) Rs.3,62,250\/- (loss of future earnings),
\ntotally Rs.5,04,250\/-, paid Rs.5,00,000\/-, although claimed
\nRs.9,86,349\/- through written arguments submitted before the Claims
\nTribunal. During the course of submissions by learned counsel for the
\ninsured and claimant, main emphasis was directed to heads of (i)
\npain, shock and suffering, (ii) expenses for buying limbs in future,
\nand (iii) loss of future earnings.  Payments by the Government are on
\nspecified items, therefore, many other items require personal
\nspendings. Charges for boarding, lodging, special diet, conveyance,
\netc. are not payable nor cost of artificial legs. A man from Police
\nforce can easily engage in other better assignments. He can also
\nengage in post retirement assignments, security service being one of
\nthem, looking to improved longevity and nature of their service.
\nDuring service, he can secure accelerated promotions and obtain
\nmonetary awards for achievements in investigations, parades, and
\nengagements in social duties like earthquakes, floods, riots, etc.
\nBut an officer suffering from disability, particularly of leg, would
\nbe at loss in post accident service and employment market. Normal
\npromotions in service may be there but they do not compensate these
\nlosses.  In Mahomed Hanif Dallu v. Lunkaran Ganpatram Sharma &
\nAnr. (1980 GLR 412), this Court said in paragraph-9:\n<\/p>\n
 …..\n<\/p>\n
The victim’s eligibility for employment, assuming that in his future
\nlife he would have sought employment, was bound to be reduced because
\nof the injury suffered by him. It was also held that in any case, any
\nperson not suffering from such
\ndisability would be preferred and, therefore, there was a loss of
\nchance of favourable employment. Even assuming that the appellant
\nwould not have sought employment but taken to some profession, there
\nis no manner of doubt that even if there be no total loss of career,
\nthere will be considerable handicap in pursuing the same career
\n……\n<\/p>\n
\t\tThereafter,
\nin paragraph 9-A, this Court said:\n<\/p>\n
 …..\n<\/p>\n
Sometimes permanent partial disability may
\nnot have immediate effect on the plaintiff’s earnings and it may be
\nfond that he was still able to earn his pre-accident wages and to
\nperform his pre-accident work. Nevertheless his disability would
\nrender him unfit for some profession or occupation for which he was
\npreviously fit and qualified and such a man is at a disadvantage
\ncompared with his colleagues in the labour market …..\n<\/p>\n
\t\tIn
\nparagraph 7-A of this decision, this Court said:\n<\/p>\n
 ….\n<\/p>\n
that the fall in the value of money in our country was the main
\nfactor to be kept in view while assessing the damages on the count of
\npain and suffering. It was observed that the need for periodical
\nreassessment of damages at certain key points was a felt need and the
\nrequirement of adjusting awards to changing conditions was realised
\n…..\n<\/p>\n
13.\t\tGiving
\nconsideration to the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the
\nparties, Apex Court decision in Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh and others<\/a>
\n (supra), which clearly lays down that claimant is entitled to `just’
\ncompensation, Court should grant it irrespective of claim made by the
\nvictim of accident, on the available evidence or allow amendment to
\nbe made and opportunity to lead evidence. Further, claimant can also
\nbe awarded compensation for future medical treatment. We are not in
\nagreement with the contentions raised by Shri B.N.Keshwani relying on
\nB.H.Nagarathana and others v. Karnataka State Road Transport
\nCorporation (1999 ACJ 1472), that claimant is not entitled to more
\ncompensation than claimed by him, he is not aggrieved person since he
\nhas been awarded compensation claimed by him. This is not so. Through
\nwritten submissions, claim for Rs.9,86,349\/- is made. The Tribunal
\nassessed compensation of Rs.5,04,250\/- but awarded Rs.5,00,000\/- on
\nthe ground that compensation to this extent is claimed. This
\nconclusion is not reflected from written submissions of claimant
\ntaken on record by the Tribunal. Looking to the seriousness of
\ninjuries resulting in amputation of one leg, long treatment, claimant
\nmust have undergone great pain, shock and sufferings and continue to
\nsuffer in future as discussed hereinbefore. Therefore, compensation
\nunder this head deserves to be enhanced to Rs.1,25,000\/-. According
\nto the doctor, artificial leg requires to be replaced every two
\nyears. It is contended that reasonable compensation has been awarded
\nunder this head. Claimant cannot be asked to use artificial limbs
\nfrom Jaipur alone because they are cheaper. Question is of
\nsuitability and reliability. In case better artificial limb is
\navailable elsewhere, he can do so. Shri B.S.Patel contended that
\nclaimant has replaced artificial leg number of times costing him much
\nmore than awarded by the Tribunal. To buttress this submission, Bill
\nNo.120 dated 12.2.2002, Rehabs Physical Restorations, A-1, Mangalsai,
\nOpp.Baroda Hi-School, 84, Alkapuri Society, Vadodara-390007, is
\nplaced on record (Mark-X). Claimant may have replaced artificial leg
\nafter two years as stated by the doctor but expenditure statements\/
\nbills have not been filed. Opposite parties do not state that
\nclaimant undertook replacement of limbs from Jaipur during all
\nreplacements. Therefore, in these circumstances, expenses for buying
\nlimbs is increased to Rs.1,20,000\/-. Similarly, there is loss of
\nfuture earnings as discussed in preceding part of judgment. Claims
\nTribunal has awarded Rs.3,62,250\/-. Taking monthly salary Rs.3,500 \/
\n70% (disability) = Rs.2,450 x 12 = Rs.29,400 x 17 = Rs.4,99,800\/-,
\ncompensation for loss of future earnings is increased to
\nRs.4,99,800\/-.\n<\/p>\n
17.\t\tLearned
\nadvocate Mr. Thakkar also relied upon decision of Apex Court in case
\nof Sunil Kumar v. Ram Singh Gaud & Ors.<\/a>\n<\/p>\n
reported
\nin 2007(7) Supreme 450.\n<\/p>\n
The relevant are Para 8 and 9,
\nwhich are quoted as under :\n<\/p>\n
 8.\tWe
\nfind substance in the submission put forth by the counsel for the
\nappellant. The Tribunal as well as the High Court have not awarded
\nany compensation towards loss of future income.  After the fracture
\nof tibia, it is doubtful if the appellant can even drive again. Even
\nif he pursues some other vocation, he would not be able to earn as
\nmuch as he is earning now.  The disability suffered by the appellant
\nwould surely reduce his earning capacity. Therefore, the appellant is
\nrequired to be compensated for the loss of earning due to the
\ninjuries suffered by him in the accident.\n<\/p>\n
9.
\n\tTaking into consideration the present income of the appellant as
\nRs.4,000\/- per month; and the permanent disability of 45% suffered by
\nhim, we are of the view that the capacity of the appellant to earn in
\nfuture would be reduced by Rs.1,800\/- per month approximately.  If
\n1\/3rd is deducted towards miscellaneous
\nexpenses, the loss of income comes to Rs.1,200\/- per month which, in
\nturn, comes to Rs.14,400\/- per annum.  Appellant was 29 years of age
\nat the time of accident. Taking the multiplier to be 18 [as per the
\nSecond Schedule to Section 163A of the Act], the total loss of income
\ncomes to Rs.2,59,200\/-.\n<\/p>\n
18.\t\tLearned
\nadvocate Mr. Thakkar also relied upon decision of Apex Court in case
\nof Sapna v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. &
\nAnr.<\/a> reported
\nin AIR 2008 SC 2281.\n<\/p>\n
The relevant are Para 12 and 14, which are quoted as under :\n<\/p>\n
 12.\t\tIn
\nAbati Bezbaruah v. Dy. Director General, Geological Survey of India &
\nAnr.<\/a> [(2003) 3 SCC 148], it was held :\n<\/p>\n
“11.\n<\/p>\n
It is now a well-settled principle of law that the payment of
\ncompensation on the basis of structured formula as provided for under
\nthe Second Schedule should not ordinarily be deviated from. Section
\n168 of the Motor Vehicles Act lays down the guidelines for
\ndetermination of the amount of compensation in terms of Section 166
\nthereof. Deviation from the structured formula, however, as has been
\nheld by this Court, may be resorted to in exceptional
\ncases. Furthermore, the amount of compensation should be just and
\nfair in the facts and circumstances of each case.”\n<\/p>\n
\tWe
\nmay also notice a decision in Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh & Ors.<\/a>
\n[(2003) 2 SCC 274] wherein a Three Judge Bench of this Court opined
\nthat the law does not permit passing of any further award after the
\nfinal award was passed, stating :\n<\/p>\n
“Therefore,
\nin a case where injury to a victim requires periodical medical
\nexpenses, fresh award cannot be passed or previous award cannot be
\nreviewed when the medical expenses are incurred after finalization of
\nthe compensation proceedings. Hence, the only alternative is that at
\nthe time of passing of final award, the Tribunal\/court should
\nconsider such eventuality and fix compensation accordingly. No one
\ncan suggest that it is improper to take into account expenditure
\ngenuinely and reasonably required to be incurred for future medical
\nexpenses. Future medical expenses required to be incurred can be
\ndetermined only on the basis of fair guesswork after taking into
\naccount increase in the cost of medical treatment.”\n<\/p>\n
14.
\n  It has not been disputed that future treatment for the appellant
\nwould be necessary. If future treatment is necessary, some
\nprovision should be made therefor. In absence of any clear cut
\nestimate, we are inclined to award a further sum of Rs.75,000\/- under
\nthe said head. She may require another operation. She may require to
\nbe provided with an artificial limb. We, direct accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
19.\t\tHe
\nfurther relied upon decision of Madras High Court in case of
\nShanmugham v. Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State
\nTransport Corporation, Villupuram Division, Villupuram reported
\nin 2006 (4) MLJ 257.\n<\/p>\n
The relevant are Head Note ‘A’ and ‘B’,
\nwhich are quoted as under :\n<\/p>\n
 Head
\nNote   A – Motor Vehicles Act (59 of
\n1988), Section 166   Motor Accident   Injuries suffered by victim
\n  Claim for compensation   Award passed for Rs.15,000\/- as
\nagainst the claim for Rs.1,00,000\/- – Medical bills rejected on the
\nground that the concerned doctors, were not examined   Appeal by
\nthe claimant, for enhancement   There is no question of granting
\nany amount towards medical expenses as  gratis  – Claimant has
\nproduced all the relevant medical records in original
\n  Tribunal ought to have either accepted it or rejected it   No
\nquestion of the Tribunal making ex gratia payment   There is no
\nreason to doubt the bona fide of the claimant   Claimant is
\nentitled to claim the complete medical expenses   Award of
\ncompensation, enhanced.\n<\/p>\n
Head
\nNote-(B) – Motor Vehicles
\nAct (59 of 1988), Section 166   Application for compensation
\nVictim of the accident is entitled to take treatment from different
\ndoctors   Method and period of treatment shall depend on the
\nresponse of the patient   Victim cannot be asked to examine all the
\ndoctors, who treated him   If the Tribunal directs the examination
\nof all such doctors, it will defeat the very object of the Act, which
\nis a remedy for the cause and effect of an accident   Appeal
\nallowed to the extent indicated.\n<\/p>\n
20.\t\tHe
\nfurther relied upon decision of Division Bench of Madras High Court
\nin case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited v.
\nG. Balasubramaniyam
\nreported in 2007 (6) MLJ 585.\n<\/p>\n
The relevant is Para 19, which is quoted as under :\n<\/p>\n
 19.\t\tOn
\nthe other hand, the learned counsel for the appellant vehemently
\nargued that there was duplication of award of compensation,
\nsince the Tribunal had awarded a further sum of Rs.4,00,00\/- as
\ncompensation for the loss of comforts occasioned due to the permanent
\ndisability suffered by the first respondent\/first claimant, over and
\nabove, the sum of Rs.8,00,000\/- awarded as compensation for loss of
\nfuture earning capacity.  In support of his contention, the learned
\ncounsel relied on the judgment of the Full Bench of Madras High Court
\nin Cholan Roadways Corporation Ltd., v. Ahmed Thambi (2006) 4 MLJ 362
\n: 2006 (4) CTC 433.  In case of injuries resulting in permanent
\ndisability, tow methods of assessment of compensation for permanent
\ndisability are possible.  One by awarding a lump sum payment for the
\npermanent disability which will take into its fold, the loss of
\nfuture earning capacity and loss of amenities in life and the other
\nby awarding separate amounts for loss of future earning capacity and
\nloss of amenities in life caused by the permanent disability.  As per
\nthe Full Bench judgment of the Madras High Court cited above, what is
\nprohibited is awarding separate amount of compensation for loss of
\nearning capacity, when lump sum payment is awarded for permanent
\ndisability as such or awarding separate amount as compensation for
\npermanent disability as such, after separately itemising compensation
\nfor loss of earning capacity.  In case loss of earning capacity is
\nseparately assessed without awarding lump sum amount for permanent
\ndisability as such, there is no prohibition for separately assessing
\ncompensation for loss of amenities in life caused by the permanent
\ndisability.  Therefore, this Court is not in a position to fully
\naccept the above said contention of the learned counsel for the
\nappellant that there is duplication of award of compensation.  The
\naward of separate amounts: (1) for loss of earning capacity and (2)
\nfor loss of amenities in life caused by the permanent disability is
\nperfectly in accordance with the view expressed by the Full Bench of
\nthe Madras High Court in the judgment cited supra.\n<\/p>\n
21.\t\tHe
\nalso relied upon decision of Madras High Court in case of Saravanan
\n@ Saravanakumar v. M. Sankaran and Another reported
\nin 2008(4) MLJ 1193.\n<\/p>\n
The relevant are Para 10, 17 and 18, which are quoted as under :\n<\/p>\n
 10.\t\tIn
\n2005 (1) TN MAC 87, the claimant had sustained fracture on the right
\nthigh, right knee and injuries all over the body.   He was unable
\nto stand, walk freely, climbing stairs and not able to drive and his
\nright leg shortened than that of the left leg’.  The Division Bench
\nfelt that the award should be based on the larger perspective of
\njustice, equity and good
\nconscience and technicalities in the decision-making must be eschewed
\nand held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t …..\n<\/p>\n
There should be realisation on the part of the Tribunals and Courts
\nthat the possession of one’s own body is the first and most valuable
\nof all human rights, and that all possessions and ownerships are
\nextensions of this primary right, while awarding compensation for
\nbodily injuries.  Bodily injury is to be treated as a deprivation
\nwhich entitles a claimant to damages.  The amount of damages varies
\naccording to gravity of injuries.  Deprivation sustained as a
\nconsequence of bodily injuries may bring with it three consequence,
\nnamely (I) loss of earnings and earning capacity, (ii) expenses to
\npay others for what otherwise he would do for himself and (iii) loss
\nor diminution in full pleasures and joys of living.  Though it is
\nimpossible to equate money with human suffering, agony and personal
\ndeprivation, the Tribunals and Courts should make an honest and
\nserious attempt to award damages so far as money can compensate the
\nloss.  Loss of curing and earning should adequately be compensated.
\nTherefore, while considering deprivation, the Tribunal and Courts
\nshould have due regard to the gravity and degree of deprivation as
\nwell as the degree of deprivation as well as the degree of awareness
\nof the deprivation.  In awarding damages in personal injury cases,
\nthe compensation awarded by the Court should be substantial, it
\nshould not be merely token damages.\n<\/p>\n
17.\t\tAs
\nregards loss of amenities of life, the Tribunal was not willing to
\naccept the appellant’s case that he was earning a sum of Rs.1750\/-
\nper month.  He had produced Exhibit A-6.  The appellant had passed
\nSSLC and claimed that he was working in Ambika Electronics.  Even for
\na non earning member, a sum of Rs.1,250\/- is fixed as monthly income.
\n Therefore, there is no reason to reject the appellant’s monthly
\nincome at the rate of Rs.1,750\/-, when even for a non earning member,
\na notional income of Rs.1,250\/- is fixed as monthly income.
\nTherefore, Rs.1,750\/- is accepted as the monthly income.  He was out
\nof employment for a period of three months.  So, Rs.4,250\/- is
\nawarded for loss of earning.\n<\/p>\n
18.\t\tThe
\ndisability, was fixed at 95%.  I find that the percentage of
\ndisability for deformity of genital organs was fixed at 60% for
\nabsence of both tests, 5% and for deformity in both hips 20%.
\nTherefore, it shows that he cannot stand for too long, which will
\naffect his job prospect.  He was very young at the time of the
\naccident, and if he had 100%
\nhealth his job prospect would have bee definitely better.  If his
\ndisability namely, shortening of hips will not make him incapable of
\nworking, definitely, his prospects of getting a job commensurate with
\nhis capacity prior to the accident would have reduced.  This
\nreduction and loss of prospects is fixed at 750\/- per month.  He was
\nonly 26 years old at the time of the accident and adopting multiplier
\nof 18, the reduction in loss of earning capacity would be
\nRs.1,62,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
22.\t\tI
\nhave considered submissions made by all learned advocates those who
\nare appearing on behalf of respective parties. I have also perused
\naward passed by Claims Tribunal, Bharuch and I have also considered
\ndecision which has been relied upon by learned advocate Mr. Thakkar
\nappearing on behalf of appellant   claimant.\n<\/p>\n
23.\t\tThe
\nquestion is that looking to injury as per medical certificate given
\nby Civil Hospital Ex.90 and evidence of Dr. Dipak Dave Ex.122 where
\nclaimant was found to be completely unstable and deformed right knee
\njoint. Dr. Dave advised the claimant to approach Dr. Chaubal at
\nBombay and on 11th
\nJune 1984, Dr. Dave assisted Dr. Chaubal in repairing ligament of
\nclaimant. Middle semi-lunar cartiledge of right knee joint was
\nremoved and critiat ligament was repaired. Thereafter, second
\noperation was performed and
\nlateral co-lateral ligament was repaired and follow-up treatment was
\ngiven by Dr. Dave under instructions of Dr. Chaubal. The letter
\naddressed by Dr. Chaubal is Ex.123. Dr. Dave has also issued
\ndisability certificate Ex.124 showing following disability of
\nclaimant :\n<\/p>\n
 (i)\tLateral
\ninstability and tenderness right knee.\n<\/p>\n
(ii)
\nHe has shortening of 3\/4 inch of right lower extremity.\n<\/p>\n
(iii)
\nMuscular waisting on the right side by 0.7 inches<\/p>\n
(iv)
\nHe also has developed arthritis on the left side of his body.\n<\/p>\n
(v)
\nHe also has lumber spondylosis.\n<\/p>\n
24.\t\tUltimately,
\nDr. Dave estimated permanent partial disability at 60% and Medical
\nBoard has assessed disability at 50% as per Ex.119. According to Dr.
\nDave’s evidence, in future, there will be future deterioration due to
\nsecondary arthritis and longevity of life also decrease. Dr. Saraiya
\nhas also sent his opinion from America on reference of claimant’s
\ncase to him and he has estimated the amount of expenditure. The
\nletter is produced at Ex.126.\n<\/p>\n
25.\t\tIn
\nlight of aforesaid evidence, claims tribunal has considered 50%
\npermanent partial disability of claimant as per Report Ex.119 of
\nMedical Board. Therefore, future loss which has been worked out by
\nclaims tribunal considering Rs.200\/- per month ignoring 50% partial
\ndisability as per report of Medical Board Ex.119 is not proper and
\nlegal. The effect of disability being a permanent partial, claimant
\nis entitled the amount of compensation for future loss due to
\ndisability which has been certified by Medical Board, however, the
\nclaims tribunal must have to work out compensation on the basis of
\nsalary which was received by claimant at the time when accident
\noccurred. As per evidence of claimant, in the year of 1985, he was
\ndrawing total salary Rs.2700\/- + 450\/- = Rs.3150\/- per month. In the
\nyear of 1983 when accident had occurred, his salary was Rs.1300\/- and
\nin the year of 1984, his salary was Rs.1700\/- which was subsequently
\nrevised means on the date of deposition, he was drawing Rs.3150\/-
\nsalary per month. In light of aforesaid salary\/wages received by
\nclaimant, if it is considered 50% permanent partial disability, then,
\nRs.900\/- is to be considered being a 50% loss to claimant, then,
\nyearly it comes to Rs.10,800\/- and looking to age of claimant, 15
\nmultiplier is to be taken into account, then, amount comes to
\nRs.1,62,000\/-. Out of that, claims tribunal has awarded Rs.36,000\/-,
\nif it is to be deducted being a future economic loss to claimant,
\nthen remaining amount comes to Rs.1,26,000\/- being an enhanced amount
\nas per 50% permanent partial disability keeping in mind figure
\nRs.1800\/- salary which was available to claimant on the period of
\ntreatment because of injury received in accident, therefore,
\nRs.1,26,000\/- is required to be enhanced for future economic loss to
\nclaimant based on Report of Medical Board being non-pecuniary loss as
\nwell as future loss in earning capacity due to permanent disability.\n<\/p>\n
26.\t\tLooking
\nto injuries; two operations and 159 days Earned Leaves, which suggest
\nperiod of treatment, the amount available for pain, shock and
\nsuffering is Rs.25,000\/-, but, Division Bench in identical
\ncase as referred above has awarded for pain, shock and suffering
\nbeing an enhanced amount which comes to Rs.1,25,000\/-, therefore,
\nafter deducting Rs.25,000\/- awarded by claims tribunal, Rs.1,00,000\/-
\nis required to be enhanced under the head of pain, shock and
\nsuffering, loss of amenities and enjoyments of life. The medical
\nexpenses for medical treatment and medical bills and receipts given
\nby Doctors which are not exhibited because Doctors were not examined,
\nsuch technical stand or view cannot be taken by claims tribunal, for
\nthat, claimant is entitled Rs.35,000\/- being an enhanced amount,
\nagainst the amount awarded by claims tribunal Rs.28,100\/-. The amount
\nfor gratuitous services rendered by attendants has been awarded
\nRs.2,000\/- only. Looking to injury and two operations undergone by
\nclaimant; one is at Bombay and another is at Bharuch, which requires
\ntwo attendants with claimant, therefore, according to my opinion,
\nRs.20,000\/- is required to be enhanced under aforesaid head. The
\ntransport charges for follow-up treatment, only Rs.4,000\/- has been
\nawarded which also required to be enhanced upto Rs.25,000\/-. In case
\nof special diet at Bharuch
\nand at Bombay, only Rs.1500\/- has been awarded which also requires to
\nbe enhanced up to Rs.15,000\/-. The compensation for future treatment
\nif any in USA as per Dr. Saravaiya Ex.126, the claimant is entitled
\nfor enhancement of the said amount upto Rs.19,000\/-. So, in all,
\nclaimant is entitled for enhance amount under each head which
\ndiscussed above comes to Rs.3,40,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
27.\t\tThe
\nclaims tribunal has awarded meager amount with a conservative
\napproach and not appreciated the real pain suffered by claimant and
\nit also adversely affects the enjoyment of life up to mark and also
\nloss to claimant in respect of future promotion and also loss of
\nfuture service after retirement. While considering compensation in
\ncase of injury, if employee was allowed to work and he received
\nsalary that does not mean that there is no future loss caused to
\nclaimant. In case of injury when 50% permanent partial disability is
\nthere, it reduced the strength of body as a whole about 50%, so,
\nperson becomes weak as 50% which weakness remains continue in his
\nlief time, so, he may not able to perform any kind of work as 100%,
\ntherefore, according to my opinion, claimant is entitled considering
\nentire facts and circumstances of case as well as evidence which was
\nconsidered by claims tribunal on record, the amount of compensation
\nwhich has been worked out by claims tribunal is on lower side means
\nmeager amount and therefore, claimant is entitled enhanced amount
\nwhich comes to Rs.3,40,000\/- under aforesaid heads as discussed by
\nthis Court as above with 12% interest from date of filing claim
\npetition till date of realisation.\n<\/p>\n
28.\t\tIn
\nresult, present First Appeal is partly allowed.\n<\/p>\n
29.\t\tThe
\nclaimant is entitled to recover 60% of enhance amount of
\nRs.3,40,000\/- from Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and remaining 40% of
\nenhanced amount is to be recovered from Respondent Nos.4 to 6 those
\nwho are jointly and severally liable with proportionate cost and
\ninterest at the rate of 12% per annum from date of filing of claim
\npetition till its realisation. Opponent No.6 do satisfy the claim of
\n40% as if it is a judgment debtor.\n<\/p>\n
30.\t\tAfter
\nrealising the entire amounts from Respondent Nos.1 and 2 as well as
\nfrom Respondent Nos.4 to 6 as directed by this Court, Claims Tribunal
\nconcerned is directed to pay entire amount by account payee cheque in
\nname of Shailesh J. Mehta   claimant, after proper verification.\n<\/p>\n
31.\t\tR.\n<\/p>\n
& P., if available, be sent to claims tribunal concerned,
\nforthwith.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tSd\/-\n<\/p>\n
[H.K.\n<\/p>\n
RATHOD, J.]<\/p>\n
#Dave<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Shailesh vs Kashiram on 28 January, 2010 Author: H.K.Rathod,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print FA\/373\/1990 51\/ 51 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 373 of 1990 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD Sd\/- ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-212211","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nShailesh vs Kashiram on 28 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shailesh-vs-kashiram-on-28-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shailesh vs Kashiram on 28 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shailesh-vs-kashiram-on-28-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-01-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-05-15T21:28:37+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"54 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shailesh-vs-kashiram-on-28-january-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shailesh-vs-kashiram-on-28-january-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shailesh vs Kashiram on 28 January, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-15T21:28:37+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shailesh-vs-kashiram-on-28-january-2010\"},\"wordCount\":10709,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shailesh-vs-kashiram-on-28-january-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shailesh-vs-kashiram-on-28-january-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shailesh-vs-kashiram-on-28-january-2010\",\"name\":\"Shailesh vs Kashiram on 28 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-15T21:28:37+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shailesh-vs-kashiram-on-28-january-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shailesh-vs-kashiram-on-28-january-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shailesh-vs-kashiram-on-28-january-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shailesh vs Kashiram on 28 January, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Shailesh vs Kashiram on 28 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shailesh-vs-kashiram-on-28-january-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shailesh vs Kashiram on 28 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shailesh-vs-kashiram-on-28-january-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-01-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-05-15T21:28:37+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"54 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shailesh-vs-kashiram-on-28-january-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shailesh-vs-kashiram-on-28-january-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shailesh vs Kashiram on 28 January, 2010","datePublished":"2010-01-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-15T21:28:37+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shailesh-vs-kashiram-on-28-january-2010"},"wordCount":10709,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shailesh-vs-kashiram-on-28-january-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shailesh-vs-kashiram-on-28-january-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shailesh-vs-kashiram-on-28-january-2010","name":"Shailesh vs Kashiram on 28 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-01-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-15T21:28:37+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shailesh-vs-kashiram-on-28-january-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shailesh-vs-kashiram-on-28-january-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shailesh-vs-kashiram-on-28-january-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shailesh vs Kashiram on 28 January, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/212211","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=212211"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/212211\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=212211"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=212211"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=212211"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}