MOHANBHAI CHANABHAI SORATHIYA Vs. ARJANBHAI MASHRUBHAI KANJIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge is to the judgment dtd. 1/9/2018 passed by the MACT, Junagadh in MACP no.400/05.

(2.) Facts of the case suggest that on 15/3/2005, the injured at about 2.30 p.m. was proceeding from Rajkot to Ahmedabad in accent car bearing registration no. GJ-5 CF-7987 which was driven by opponent no.3. When they reached Kuvadva Road near J.K. Hotel, a utility car bearing registration no. GJ-13 U-8507 driven by opponent no.1 came in a rash and negligent manner and on turning, the accident occurred. The learned Tribunal has considered equal negligence of both the vehicles and had ordered to recover the amount from opponents no.1 to 5.

(3.) Mr. Modi submitted that the learned Tribunal was required to consider the physical disability in the form of permanent nature to grant appropriate amount under the head of of loss of amenities of life when no amount has been granted for future loss of income. Mr. Modi further submitted that medical expenses as could be proved is to the amount of Rs.1,85,000.00. Mr. Modi submitted that at the time of the accident, the claimant was 45 and was serving as an Assistant Engineer in the Irrigation Department at Porbandar and the accident had occurred on 15/3/2005 and the salary slip of June, 2005 produced at Exh.39 shows his monthly income of Rs.16,000.00. Advocate Mr. Modi submitted that there was compounding fracture in his leg which has led to permanent disability and because of the inability, he took voluntary retirement which came into effect on 30/6/2005. Advocate Mr. Modi submitted that because of VRS, the loss of income was required to be considered which the learned Tribunal has failed to do so. Advocate Mr. Modi further submitted that in view of I.T. returns of his continuation of the working in other field was considered, then the learned Tribunal was required to grant the amount under the head of loss of amenities of life to appropriately compensate him for the permanent loss which he has suffered and further submitted that he had undergone the treatment and the medical bills would reflect the suffering and the pain which he would have sustained during the term of his treatment where actually, the Doctor has certified 48% permanent disability and the learned Tribunal has considered the same as 24% functional disability.