DINESHBHAI NARSINHBHAI ROHIT Vs. DEVJIBHAI SHIVABHAI ROHIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is directed against the judgement and award dtd. 21/6/2017 passed vide Exh.43 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi) and 3rd Additional District Judge, Anand in Motor Accident Claims Petition No.376 of 2011.

(2.) The appellant claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000.00 towards his injuries sustained in a vehicular accident, whereas the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.2,28,422.00 with 8% interest from the date of claim petition till realization to be entitled to claim from respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally and respondent No.3-Insurance Company came to be exonerated.

(3.) At the outset, learned advocate Mr.Sheth has submitted that the income, which is assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.3,000.00 per month is required to be enhanced as per the wages prescribed under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 since the accident had occurred in the month of July, 2011. It is submitted that as per the Minimum Wages Act , prescribed by the State Government for a period of 1/4/2011 to 30/9/2011, since the petitioner was a labourer, the same would come under the unskilled category and wages should be Rs.4,500.00 per month. It is further submitted that the petitioner was admitted in the hospital from 3/5/2011 to 16/5/2011 and thereafter, has been admitted from 11/7/2011 to 21/7/2011 as an indoor patient and hence, the amount awarded towards pain, shock and sufferings is required to be enhanced. Accordingly, he as submitted that actual loss of income, which is awarded by the Tribunal of Rs.9,000.00 is also required to be enhanced. He has further submitted that the amount awarded towards rich diet, transportation charges and attendant charges by the Tribunal of Rs.7,500.00 is meager amount, looking to the actual hospitalization done by the appellant as the appellant was hospitalized in 02 hospitals and remained as indoor patient. Finally, it is submitted that as per the clause of the policy, which is at Exh.37, more importantly the notice, the Insurance Company may be directed to pay the amount of compensation and they may recover from the opponents. He has also placed reliance on the deposition of the employee of the Insurance Company recorded below Exh.38 and has submitted that the Tribunal has fallen in error in appreciating the said deposition and hence, it would be the Insurance Company, who should be directed to pay the compensation and subsequently, the Insurance Company may recover the same from the opponents-owners.