BABULAL DEVJIBHAI MAHESHWARI Vs. DRIVER NOT KNOWN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge is given to the judgment and award dtd. 30/12/2016 passed by the MACT (Aux), Bhuj-Kutch in MACP no.383 of 2006.

(2.) Facts of the case suggest that the claimant-victim was returning from Medta (Rajasthan) to Kachchh by driving the tanker on the left side of the road and as stated, in a moderate speed. At about 14:00 hrs., a truck bearing registration no. RJ-14 2-G1738 came from opposite direction and dashed with the tanker. It is alleged that the truck was driven in a rash and negligent manner and came on the wrong side of the road and dashed and collided with the tanker. The appellant, thus, sustained injuries.

(3.) The appellant - claimant has raised the ground that the learned Tribunal has considered physical disability at 30% and the Orthopedic Surgeon has assessed the disability at 64% and that the surgeon has deposed that the appellant cannot drive vehicle or do heavy work. Learned advocate Mr. Hemal Shah has relied upon the judgments in the cases of Minu Raut and Anr. v. Satya Pradyumma Mohapatra and Ors., reported in 2013 ACJ 2544 SC, Kala Devi v. Bhagwan Das, reported in 2014 (12) Scale 513, Rekha Jain v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in 2013 SAR (Civil) 921, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. J.P. Jethva and Anr., reported in 2009 (1) GLH 447, Ramanbhai K. Darji v. Babusinh Thakor, reported in 2002 (2) GLH (UJ) 7 and GSRTC v. B.N. Parmar and Anr., reported in 1992 ACJ 484 Guj. as well as the other decisions, to submit that the claimant was a driver and hence, should be considered as a skilled worker and has urged the Court to consider his income in line of those observed by the Courts in the judgment referred by him and further states that when the Doctor has assessed the physical disability and considering the work of the claimant, being a driver, Mr. Shah states that 100% permanent functional disability ought to have been considered by the Tribunal.