SHAILESHKUMAR Vs. RAWAL HITESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appeal arises from the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated 31st July, 2011 in MACP No. 381 of 2006 whereby the Tribunal has awarded the compensation of Rs. 10,86,660 with interest at the rate of 7.5%. Short facts are that Thakore Shailesh Natwarji, with Rameshji and another person Gautamji were going on 21st January, 2006 on motor cycle bearing No. GJ-2-AB-9825 and near Bhasaria Chokadi, at about 7 to 8 o'clock, when they were returning back from Baliasan, one truck bearing No. GJ-2-R-6607 dashed the motorcycle on one side and as a result thereof, driver of the motorcycle Shaileshkumar as well as Gautamkumar pillion rider had fallen down. Shaileshkumar sustained serious injuries on head and fractures on leg whereas Gautamkumar ultimately succumbed to the injuries. Such accident gave rise to two claim petitions, one was M ACP No. 381 / 2006 for compensation of Rs. 32,00,000 preferred by the injured Thakor Shailesh Natwarji and the another was MACP No. 382 of 2006 preferred by the parents of deceased Gautamji for compensation of Rs. 14,50,000. The Tribunal, at the conclusion of the proceedings, awarded the aforesaid amount in Claim Petition No. 381 of 2006 and also awarded the amount of Rs. 2,29,860 with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum in MACP No. 382 of 2006. Out of the aforesaid two, the present appeal is restricted to the decision rendered by the Claims Tribunal in MACP No. 381 of 2006. However, the original claimant who is stated to be in coma on account of the injuries sustained by him has preferred appeal against the decision of the Tribunal in MACP No. 381 of 2006.

(2.) We have heard Mr. Thakore, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Dakshesh Mehta for respondent No. 2 Insurance Company, main contesting party for final disposal of the matter since the urgency was pressed by the learned Counsel for the appellant, as the injured claimant is in coma. Earlier, he was being looked after by his father but pending the proceedings, his father also expired and, therefore, only his wife was left to take care of the injured claimant.

(3.) First contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the assessment of economic loss considered by the Tribunal is erroneous. In his submission, the certificate of salary of Rs. 8,000 per month of the claimant with Khyati Resorts had come on record as Mark 16/6, in spite of the same, the Tribunal assessed the income at Rs. 3,000 per month. Not only that but no prospective income was considered and, therefore, learned Counsel submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal for loss of income is on much lower side. He also submitted that the Tribunal has committed error in awarding compensation towards attendant charges as well as for future treatment and, therefore, this Court may consider in the appeal.