SUKHABHAI PUNAMBHAI CHAUHAN Vs. KANUBHAI CHINAUBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present First Appeal, under Sec. 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is preferred by the appellant - Insurance Company, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dtd. 31/8/2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Nadiad in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 256 of 2003, by which the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.1,65,600.00 with 7.5% per annum interest to the claimants, holding Opponents i.e. driver, owner and insurance company liable, jointly and severally.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are as under:

(3.) Learned advocate Mr. Paresh M. Darji for the appellant - claimant has submitted that the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.1,65,600.00 with 7% per annum interest by partly allowing the claim petition which is highly insufficient. He has pointed out from the impugned judgment that the Tribunal has considered the income of Rs.2,000.00 p.m. and 30% disability is considered and applied multiplier of 18 and therefore, under the head of future loss of income, the Tribunal has calculated Rs.1,29,600.00. He has further submitted that the injured is aged about 19 years and he was doing brick and agriculture labour work. His income as per the deposition of the claimant himself is Rs.3,600.00 p.m. as the claimant has stated that he is earning Rs.120.00 per day and the work of brick and agriculture is such that the work is remained for 30 days in a month. He has further submitted that by adding 40% prospective income, in that Rs.3,600.00 p.m., the income should be considered on higher side. He has further submitted that the disability certificate exhibited at Exh.43 also indicates 63% permanent partial disability and it is also coming out from the deposition of the claimant as well as Doctor that right leg of the claimant was shortened by half inch and accordingly, applying multiplier of 18 looking to the age, the income could be Rs.6,85,843.00 under the head of future loss of income. He has further pointed out that the actual loss of income is considered for four months by considering Rs.2,000.00 per month income which should be as per the evidence available on record and looking to the period of seven months hospitalisation as well as bed rest, after considering the income of Rs.3,600.00 p.m. for seven months, it comes to Rs.25,200.00. He has also indicated from the impugned judgment that towards pain, shock and suffering, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000.00 which should be at least Rs.50,000.00 as the claimant was hospitalised for 31 days. The injury over leg and due to that, the shortening of the leg and disability is also assessed to the extent 63% and therefore, he has submitted that the amount of at least Rs.50,000.00 should be awarded under the head of pain, shock and suffering. Under the head of attendant charges, transportation and special diet, Rs.3,000.00 is awarded by the Tribunal, which should be Rs.15,000.00 considering the injuries and period of hospitalisation. The medical bills are produced which is considered by the Tribunal is Rs.5,000.00, which should be Rs.20,000.00 looking to the prolonged treatment and hospital charges and therefore, he has submitted that substantial rise can be given to the claimant as compensation in view of the decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of :- (i) National Insurance Company Limited versus Pranay Shethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and (ii) Syed Sadiq versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in 2014(2) SCC 735. Therefore, he prays that the appeal is required to be allowed by enhancing at least about Rs.6,30,083.00 as submitted above.