RAJ HARESH KEVALRAMANI Vs. DEVENDRASINH DILIPSINH VALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The claimant in appeal against the award of Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Aux.), Bhavnagar dtd. 13/10/2017 in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.473 of 2006. It is a case where the claim was filed by the claimant on behalf of minor for compensation for the injuries sustained in vehicular accident. The injured victim was aged 14 years and had claimed compensation of Rs.3.00 Lakhs. The Tribunal, after considering all the aspects, has awarded compensation of Rs.69,000.00 with running interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the petition till payment.

(2.) Learned advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error by considering the disability of the injured victim as 10% for the body as a whole, whereas the disability certificate issued by the Orthopedic Doctor is 20% and therefore, by applying the decision of the Apex Court in case of Master Mallikarjun v/s. Divisional Manager, The National Insurance Company Limited, reported in AIR 2014 SC 736, the claimant will be entitled to compensation of Rs.3.00 Lakhs by considering the disability to be between 10% to 30%. Learned advocate for the appellant has vehemently submitted that the nature of injury is serious injury and has affected the whole life of the victim and therefore, by granting an amount of Rs.22,500.00 towards future loss of income, great injustice is caused to the victim. Learned advocate submitted that the victim had to undergo surgery on two occasions and on each occasion, the claimant had to pay an amount of Rs.1.00Lakh towards each surgery. This aspect also the Tribunal ought to have considered. Learned advocate by taking this Court through the pleadings in the appeal memo has elaborately indicated about the injury sustained and how the treatment had taken place over period of time.

(3.) Learned advocate appearing for the respondent insurance company submitted that the claim of the appellant made before this Court is not at all sustained by any evidence inasmuch as the reference made by the appellant with regard to two surgeries and incurring cost of Rs.1.00 Lakh each, cannot be sustained as there is no evidence worth the name and the documentary evidence which is placed on record and exhibited only sustained the expenditure to the extent of Rs.31,000.00 and odd. Learned advocate for the insurance company has submitted that the claim of the appellant to the extent of Rs.3.00 Lakh considering the injury between 10% to 30% by relying upon the decision in case of Master Mallikarjun (Supra), cannot be accepted as even from the evidence of the victim themselves, disability sustained is to the extent of 10% of the whole body.