SHAMJI KENA AHIR Vs. MAVJIBHAI BHIKHA MAKWANA

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. 15/7/2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Kachchh at Bhuj in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.441 of 1999, by which the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.4,40,800.00 with 10% per annum interest to the claimant/s, holding opponent Nos.1 to 3 liable, jointly and severally.

(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, disability and special diet, transportation and attendant charges, pain, shock and suffering, actual loss, future medical expenses, etc. At the outset, he has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of (i) Chanappa Nagapa Muchalagoda vs. Divisional Manager, New India Insurance Company Limited reported in (2020) 1 SCC 796, (ii) Kajal vs. Jagdish Chand reported in (2020) 4 SCC 413, (iii) Sanjay Verma vs. Haryana Roadways reported in (2014) 3 SCC 210, and (iv) Mona Baghel and Others vs. Sajjan Singh Yadav & Others rendered in SLP(C)/29207/2018. It is submitted that the Tribunal has committed error in considering the monthly income of the injured Rs.3,000.00, which should be Rs.4,000.00 considering the fact that he was doing driving work of his own truck, and taking into account the minimum wages prevailed in the year of accident. Accordingly, actual loss of income may be increased considering the income of the injured. 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 40% may be granted in monthly income of the injured. It is submitted that the Tribunal has not properly considered the disability certificates issued by doctor at Exh.53, injury certificate and deposition of doctor at Exh.52, whereby it is found that the claimant cannot do driving work due to amputation of right arm, resulting into shortening of his right arm - 4 c.m. short than left arm. Hence, disability to the extent of 100% functional disability is required to be considered, instead of to the extent 57%, which is considered by the Tribunal in light of the decision of the of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chanappa Nagapa Muchalagoda (supra). Furthermore, the multiplier should be 16 considering the various decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and taking into account the age of the claimant. 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.2,50,000.00, instead of Rs.30,000.00 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) Magma General Insurance Company Limited versus Nanu Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130, (iii) Sanjay Verma (supra). It is submitted that the Tribunal has committed error in not properly considering the amount towards attendant charges, which should be Rs.3,64,800.00 instated of Rs.6,000.00 considering the time of treatment taken by the injured and in light of the decision of the of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kajal (supra). It is submitted that the Tribunal has committed error in not properly considering the amount towards Special diet and attendant charges, which should be Rs.10,000.00 instated of Rs.5,000.00 considering the time of treatment taken by the injured. It is also submitted that the Tribunal has committed error in not awarding any amount towards future medical expenses, which should be Rs.2,00,000.00 considering above decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court. It is submitted that the Tribunal has rightly considered 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.