VIRJI BHANJI MAHIDA Vs. NANURAM MAVJIBHAI DAMOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant - injured has challenged the judgment and award dtd. 24/12/2019 passed by MACT (Aux), City Civil Court, Ahmedabad in MACP No.672/07.

(2.) The main ground which has been raised is that taking into consideration the actual disability and the claimant being a mason and being a labourer in the farm, the amount under the head of pain, shock and suffering has not been granted in accordance to the evidence and further, the disability led to loss of working and that fact is also not properly appreciated.

(3.) Mr. Nanavati submitted that the claimant does not agitate the income assessed by the Tribunal, but because of the accident, he was taken to the Civil Hospital, Himmatnagar and then shifted to Ahmedabad and was admitted as an indoor patient in Lavingia orthopedic hospital and was operated. The claimant had suffered too much of pain and being a labourer and a mason, he was not in a position to even recover in time so as to continue with his work immediately. The Doctor has assessed 15% permanent disability, but during the trial, the parties had agreed to consider 9% as disability for the body as a whole and for that too, the claimant does not want to raise any issue since it was the parties who had urged the Tribunal to consider 9% for the body as a whole. However, the physical disability was creating too much of pain, shock and suffering for the claimant who was a labourer and thus, stated that the claimant is required to be adequately compensated. It is submitted that he had to expend towards attendant and for a special diet to maintain himself and further to strengthen the body so as to at least make himself available for the work and thus, Mr. Nanavati stated that the amount under the said head is also required to be proportionately granted. Mr. Nanavati submitted that the age of the claimant at the time of the accident was 35 years and the learned Tribunal has erred in applying the multiplier which should actually be 16. The learned Tribunal had actually considered multiplier of 15 in the judgment.