NAYANABEN KIRITBHAI SONI Vs. IRFAN INRAHIMMIYA VOHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The injured claimant challenges the judgment dtd. 31/01/2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Nadiad in MACP No.342 of 2002.

(2.) The facts of the case could be stated as under: 2.1. On 17/11/2001, the claimant was standing along with her husband and son on the left side of the Antroli Road opposite Ragvanaj cross lane, to go to Vaso, after offering prayers at Shankrachayra temple. As per the say of the claimant, at that time at about 7:30 hours in the evening, opponent no.1 came with tempo bearing registration no.GJ-15- X-5400 from the side of Nadiad in full speed and in rash and negligent manner and dashed the claimant, her husband and her son as a result of which the claimant suffered serious injuries. The claimant was initially taken to Government Hospital, Kheda and thereafter shifted to V.S. Hospital, Ahmedabad and there she stayed as indoor patent till 16/01/2002.

(3.) Mr. Paresh Darji, learned advocate for the appellant claimant submitted that the income of the claimant was urged as Rs.2,000.00 from sewing work, however, it was not believed. Learned advocate further submitted that when no documentary evidence are produced, the income has to be considered as per minimum wages schedule as has been observed in the case of Arvind Kumar Pandey and others vs. Girish Pandey and another in Civil Appeal No.2512 of 2024 (arising out of SLP ((THELAW)) NO.20918 of 2022) and accordingly prospective rise in income should be given and considering the disability, future loss of income is also required to be assessed appropriately. Learned advocate also submitted that period of hospitalization and injury suffered by the claimant also requires reconsideration.