MEENABEN KALPESHBHAI DOSHI Vs. BHIKHUBHAI DAJIBHAI JADEJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and award dtd. 3/6/2019 passed by the M.A.C.T. (Main), Junagadh in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.116 of 2009 to the extent that as against the claim of the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.40,20,000.00 towards the compensation, the Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.8,57,602.00 with interest @ 8% per annum.

(2.) It is the case of the appellant that on 2/1/2009, at about 3.15 p.m. the appellant was going from Junagadh to Jamnagar by sitting in Mahasagar Travels Bus bearing No.GJ-11 T-1702 and when he reached Makhiyara - Jalansar road, at that time, the luxury bus turned turtle and due to that, the appellant got severe injuries on hand and different parts of the body. It is the case of the appellant that respondent No.1 i.e. the driver of the bus was driving the bus in full speed and in rash and negligent manner endangering human life and caused the accident. As a result, the appellant along with other passengers sitting inside the bus got injured in the said accident and the appellant was operated for injuries. The accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the opponent No.1.

(3.) Mr.Dharmesh Nanavati, learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the actual disability as per the certificate issued by Dr. Avinash Maru was 80%. However, the endorsement for no objection was made by learned advocate for the appellant before the Tribunal to consider the disability of the appellant at 40%, and therefore, the Tribunal considered the disability @ 40% and assessed the future economic loss of the appellant. It is the case of the appellant that as per the note book of Disability - Determination and Evaluation by Henry H. Kessler, which is relied upon while determining the claim about disability, in the aforesaid notebook, it is categorically stated that, "A lower limb has a value of 50 percent of the body as a whole (the arm, slightly more)", and therefore, when the appellant suffered part of the body on account of the aforesaid accident, the same will have some more effect and though the appellant restricted her claim to the tune of 40%, while considering the future loss of income, the same is required to be treated as 50% and accordingly, the amount was required to be determined and the amount awarded by the Tribunal was required to be enhanced accordingly.