LAWS(GJH)-2014-1-163

PANCHHIJI HIRAJI VANZARA Vs. MAHADEVBHAI MANSANGBHAI

Decided On January 30, 2014
Panchhiji Hiraji Vanzara Appellant
V/S
Mahadevbhai Mansangbhai Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the appellant original claimant, whereby he has challenged the judgment and award of the learned MACT (Auxi) Dhrangadhara, Dated 8.10.2008, passed in MACP No. 21 of 2005, awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,10,000 with nine percent interest per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization together with proportionate costs from the original Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. The brief facts of the case are that on 28.1.2005, while the appellant was going home riding a motorcycle bearing No. GJ-13-D-2105 as a pillion rider, which was owned by Respondent No. 5 and was being driven, at the relevant point of time, by Respondent No. 4, herein, same met with an accident with a truck bearing No. GJ-13-U-8259, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the present Respondent No. 1, owned by Respondent No. 2 and insured by Respondent No. 3. As a result thereof, the appellant sustained severe bodily injuries. Hence, he preferred the aforesaid claim petition, wherein, the Tribunal passed the impugned judgment and award. Hence, the present appeal.

(2.) Mr. Shah, learned Counsel for the appellant, submitted that the Tribunal failed to consider the material on record in its proper perspective and erred in not considering the prospective income of the appellant. Further, the multiplier applied by the Tribunal is on lower side, considering the fact that the appellant was only 22 years of age, at the time of accident. It was also submitted that the amount awarded under the head of pain, shock and suffering is too meagre and that no amount is awarded under the head of loss of enjoyment of life. He, therefore, prayed that the appeal be allowed.

(3.) As against this, Mr. Sandip C. Shah, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 3, supported the judgment and award of the Tribunal and submitted that the same was passed after taking into consideration the material on record, and hence, no interference is called for at the hands of this Court.