JIGARKUMAR VELJIBHAI PATEL Vs. MAHESHBHAI MANGALBHAI KHANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-claimant has filed the present First Appeal under Sec. 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ("the Act" for short) challenging the judgement and award dtd. 30/7/2010 passed in M.A.C.P. No. 1229 of 2006 by the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Kheda at Nadiad, (for short "the Tribunal") whereby, the Tribunal partially allowed the claim petition by awarding compensation of Rs.1,85,517.00 with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. The appellant -original claimant has sought for enhancement of the awarded compensation and therefore, without going into the facts with regard to the occurrence of the accident as well as any other issue only the aspect of quantum of award is considered in this order.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case is that on 22/5/2006 at about 1:00 O'clock in the night, both the claimants were going on motorcycle bearing registration No. GJ-7-AK-5231 to watch a night cricket match at Kapadwanj College ground at Dakor-Kapadwanj Road on the western side near Krishna Telecom. The motorcycle was driven by Jigar I.Kansara (claimant of M.A.C.P. No. 140 of 2007) and the claimant Jigarkumar Veljibhai Patel (claimant of MACP No. 1229 of 2006) was a pillion rider. It was the case of the claimant that the motorcyle was driven in a moderate speed and on the correct side of the road. When, they were passing through the place of accident, at the relevant time, a Tata Sumo, which was driven by Opponent No.1, owned by opponent No.2 and insured with opponent No.3 came in wrong side in rash and negligent manner endangering to human life and collided with the front part of the motorcycle and therefore, both the driver and pillion rider of the motorcycle (present claimant) sustained injuries. Therefore, the appellant claimant filed claim petition claiming Rs.3,00,000.00 towards the compensation from the respondents.

(3.) Mr. Hiren Modi, learned advocate appellant-original claimant has submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in considering only Rs.2,0000.00 towards the monthly income instead of Rs.4,000.00 claimed by the appellant. It was submitted that the minimum wages prevailing at the time of occurrence of the accident in the year 2006 was Rs.2500.00 per month.