RAJPUT ARVINDSING GIRVATSINH Vs. RAJABMIYA NANNUMIYA MALEK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge is given by the injured claimant to the judgment dtd. 31/1/2008 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kheda at Nadiyad in MACP No.48 of 1995.

(2.) Learned advocate Mr. Vishrut Jani for Advocate Mr. R.C. Jani for the appellant submitted that 10% contributory negligence has been erroneously concluded, which is contrary to the evidence on record. Further stated that the income proof was on record, and the learned Tribunal has considered that same, however, has made deduction from the income, which is not permissible, and submitted that only the tax would be deducted, and, thereafter the income has to be assessed accordingly.

(3.) Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Nanavati submitted that the fact of resigning from job owing to the mental health condition of the claimant on account of the accident, could not be proved, and, thus stated that it was only because of inquiry pending against him that he was constrained to resign from the service, which was accepted on 8/12/1995, and, thus, would not entitle him to claim 100% functional disability.