RAJPALSINH MAHAVIRSINH RAIJADA Vs. DRIVER OF RIXA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has challenged the judgment and award dtd. 4/10/2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Gondal in M.A.C.P. No. 416 of 2010 filed under Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

(2.) Mr. Nishit A. Bhalodi, learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the claim petition was filed by minor through guardian, and after attaining the majority, the cause title came to be amended and he was the original claimant for the injury sustained by him when he was minor on 22/7/2006 where he was travelling as pillion rider on Motor Cycle No. GJ-3BC-5844 which was driven by his father opponent No.4 while going from Marketing Yard, Gondal to Rupavati Village. Learned advocate for the appellant submitted that as per the case when the motor cycle reached near Geeta Battery, Gundala Road, Gondal, at that time the driver of rickshaw bearing registration No. GJ-3Z-3767 came from the opposite side, the vehicle was in full speed, the driver was rash and negligence and without observing traffic rules he dashed with the motorcycle on the front side and the claimant sustained fracture and other grievous injuries; and thus he had prayed for compensation against all the opponents jointly and severally for Rs.3,00,000.00 with running interest at the rate of 18% per annum under Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

(3.) Mr. Nishit Bhalodi, learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the tribunal has erred while considering the claim petition of the minor as the calculation has been made by considering the income as notional for the minor and thereafter the tribunal had followed the directions laid down in the case of Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and others reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 and has erred in not considering the guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited and another reported in [(2014) 14 SCC 396].