HITESHBHAI M. THAKKAR Vs. VELJIBHAI KAKUBHAI MAHESHWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present First Appeal, under Sec. 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is preferred by the appellant ' original claimant being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dtd. 27/9/2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Morbi in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.291 of 1999

(2.) Brief facts of the case are as under:

(3.) Learned advocate for the appellant - claimant has submitted that the Tribunal did not consider the statutory liability caused to the claimant as his left leg was amputed from knee after receiving injuries in the road accident. Moreover, he would submit that the learned Tribunal has not granted 40% future prospect to the claimant, which is required to be granted in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Pranay Sethi, 2017 (16) SCC 680. He would further submit that that the learned Tribunal in case of amputation granted Rs.15000.00 towards pain, shock and suffering as compensation, did not grant compensation in regards to loss of amenities of the life and loss of marriage prospective. He would further submit that in nutshell, the learned Tribunal has committed serious error in granting compensation on the lower side. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Mohd. Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain Vs. Regional Manager, UP State Road Transport Corporation rendered in Civil Appeal No.9070-9071 of 2022. He would further submit that the learned Tribunal has erred in calculating 30% self negligency of the claimant and deducted amount equal to 30% negligency from the total awarded amount worked out. He would further submit that the claimant was the pillion rider in the scooter and therefore, the issue of negligency would be composite negligency to him and he has a choice to claim compensation from any of the tortfeasor i.e. either from the owner and insurer of the scooter or owner and insurer of the crane. Thus, the learned Tribunal has committed error in deducting amount equal to 30% negligency from the total awarded amount worked out. Upon such submission, he prays to enhance the compensation granted to the complainant.