JITESHBHAI JIVANBHAI VADGAMA Vs. SALIMBHAI NAVAJIBHAI MALEK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present First Appeal, under Sec. 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is preferred by the appellant - claimant, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dtd. 30/9/2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vadodara in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.450 of 2010, by which the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.6,00,000.00 with 9% per annum interest to the claimant/s, holding opponents liable, jointly and severally. The appellant was held liable to the extent of 25% towards contributory negligence in the entire awarded amount of Rs.8,00,000.00

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

(3.) Learned advocate for the appellant - claimant has submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in not properly calculating the amount of compensation. It is submitted that amount awarded is on lower side as the Tribunal has not properly considered the various aspects; like income of the injured, injuries, prospective income, pain, shock and suffering, actual loss, loss of amenities of life, etc. It is submitted that the Tribunal has committed error in considering the monthly income of the injured Rs.2,500.00, which should be Rs.5,000.00 considering the fact that he was working at turner and considering the documentary evidence at Exh.30, and taking into account the minimum wages prevailed in the relevant time. Furthermore, it is submitted that considering the injuries and treatment taken by the injured, Rs.50,000.00 towards actual loss of income for 10 months of actual loss is required to be awarded. It is submitted that considering decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited versus Pranay Shethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, as well as taking into account the age of the injured, addition to the extent of 25% may be granted in monthly income of the injured. Furthermore, it is submitted that the Tribunal has rightly considered the disability, which is not in dispute in the present case. It is submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error by not properly considering the compensation under the head of pain, shock and suffering, which should be Rs.1,50,000.00, instead of Rs.75,000.00 awarded by the Tribunal, looking to the injuries sustained by the claimant and considering the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of : (i) Pranay Shethi (supra) and (ii) Govind Yadav vs. New India Insurance Company Limited reported in (2011) 10 SCC 683. Furthermore, considering the medical treatment and need of money towards artificial leg in future, at least, Rs.1,00,000.00 is required to be awarded, instead of Rs.50,000.00 awarded by the Tribunal. It is also submitted that the Tribunal has committed error in not properly awarded the amount towards loss of amenities of life, which should be Rs.1,50,000.00 considering the treatment taken by the injured and considering the injuries and need of artificial leg. It is submitted that the Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation under different heads, except the above raised. It is submitted that the appropriate enhancement be granted by modifying the award impugned. It is submitted that the appeal may be allowed.