VIMLABEN VINUBHAI PATEL Vs. TAKHATSINH NATHUSINH ZALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The injured claimant has challenged the judgment dtd. 30/8/2002 passed by the MACT (Aux), Ahmedabad (Rural) in MACP No.632/95. The grounds inter alia raised challenging the judgment are that the compensation has not been granted as per the functional disability and the amount under the various heads are also on lower side, and the learned Tribunal has not considered the same in right perspective.

(2.) Learned advocate Mr. Heet Jhaveri for the appellant submitted that the learned Tribunal though had considered the evidence on record with regard to the treatment undergone by the claimant and had also considered 40.03% physical disability assessed of the body as a whole by the orthopedic surgeon but has failed to consider the functional disability of the claimant accordingly and has assessed disability as 30%. Learned advocate Mr. Jhaveri submitted that the Tribunal was required to follow the principles laid down in the case of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and Anr., (2011) 1 SCC 343 to decide the functional disability since the claimant could not continue with her job, and to state that under various heads to grant just compensation requires holistic view of this court, Advocate Mr. Jhaveri has placed reliance on the judgments of Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2018) 5 SCC 656 and Ashvinbhai Jayantilal Modi v. Ramkaran Ramchandra Sharma, (2015) 2 SCC 180 and also to contend that strict proof of accident is not possible when the claimants are merely required to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability.

(3.) The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & Anr., reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343 has observed as under:-