LAWS(GJH)-2023-8-351

BABUBHAI SHANKERBHAI PATEL Vs. BIPINKUMAR SENDHABHAI PATEL

Decided On August 31, 2023
Babubhai Shankerbhai Patel Appellant
V/S
Bipinkumar Sendhabhai Patel Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The claimant-injured is before this Court praying for enhancement of the compensation amount in MACP no.795/98 which was pronounced on 19/9/2022 by MACP (Aux), Mehsana at Visnagar. The learned Tribunal had granted compensation of Rs.4,52,834.00 with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.

(2.) Advocate Mr. Amit Patel for the appellant submits that this is a second round of litigation. In the previous matter, the owner was not served and thereafter, earlier order passed by the Tribunal was set aside and the MACP was ordered to be restored back for deciding the matter afresh.

(3.) Advocate Mr. Patel submits that the injured- claimant is agriculturist and was also earning income by doing borewell work and the income was required to be considered accordingly. However, the learned Tribunal has assessed the monthly income at Rs.2,500.00 per month which according to Advocate Mr. Patel is not consistent to the work undertaken by the injured. Advocate Mr. Patel states that the learned Tribunal had also failed to take into consideration that the claimant had suffered 75% permanent disability who has lost his left leg above knee due to accidental injuries and owing to the amputation of leg, the claimant is unable to do his work and having lost the source of employment, his functional disability ought to have been considered as 100%. Advocate Mr. Patel further submits that the learned Judge has also materially erred in granting only Rs.5,000.00 under the head of pain, shock and suffering oblivious of the fact that the claimant had suffered amputation above knee at the age of 42 and that he would be undergoing pain, suffering and trauma throughout his life and would not be in a position to live a normal life and thus, according to Advocate Mr. Patel, the Tribunal has not adequately compensated the claimant even under other heads and has also failed to appreciate that the claimant would not have normal life and would have to suffer other amenities of life and enjoyment for the remaining period of his life.