MAHENDRAKUMAR MANILAL PATEL Vs. RAMJIBHAI DALSIBHAI CHAUDHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Appeals and Cross Objections are directed against the Award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Panchmahals at Godhara, MACP No.98 of 1984, dated 29.10.1988. First Appeal No.468 of 1989 is by insured for setting aside the award, First Appeal No.931 of 1989 is by State of Gujarat for setting aside the Award against it, while Cross Objections No.90 of 2004 are by claimant for enhancement of Award. Therefore, they arise out of the same accident, same parties and common Award. Consequently, being disposed of by this judgment.

(2.) Shortly stated, accident took place on 10.8.1983. Shri R.D.Chaudhari (claimant) was Police Sub Inspector at that time. Along with other police officials, he had gone to Godhara, Dahod, etc. on 9.8.1983 from Balasinor in connection with investigation of dacoity case registered at Balasinor Police Station vide C.R.No.59 of 1983. Rasulmiya Ahmadmiya (opponent-1) was driver of Jeep by which the police party was traveling. When they reached near Vavadi-Khurda Patiya on Godhara-Sevalia highway at about 3:30 a.m., it is alleged that Truck bearing registration No.GTH-7772, driven by Ganikhan Ahmadkhan Malek (opponent-4), owned by Mahendrakumar Manilal Patel (opponent-5), insured with New India Assurance Company Limited (opponent-6), with which, Jeep No.GAK-9145 of State of Gujarat (opponent-2) was also insured, came from the opposite direction with full lights towards the Jeep, which was also driven at excessive speed. The driver of the Jeep, with a view to avoid the accident, took it to the left but it dashed with the tree, with the result, claimant sustained injuries on the left leg, left hand and other parts of the body. Immediately, he was shifted to Civil Hospital, Godhara, treated there and referred to Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad, the same day. Information of this accident was lodged at Godhara Taluka Police Station and C.R.No.85 of 1983 registered. Claimant suffered extensive wound of 15 cm. x 10 cm. over left leg with muscles exposed and crushed with no movement and sensation. Plaster was applied on super condylar fracture bunerus (left). He was admitted in the hospital, treated as an indoor patient as left leg below knee was amputed. He was discharged with plaster after 59 days carrying permanent disability of 70%. He was unable to sit cross legged, he could not move without crutches, he could not run nor walk fast, he could not drive motorcycle or car, he could not swim or take part in sports. He was due for promotion but may lose it due to amputation, he may lose further promotions to the post of Dy.S.P. or D.S.P. He remained without work for five months ten days. therefore, suffered loss of leave also. He was given fitness certificate for joining duties from 20.1.1984. Claimant states that Jeep driver was driving it with excessive speed rashly and negligently and failed to exercise due care and caution. He was in the employment of State of Gujarat, owner of the Jeep. Driver of the Truck was also driving it negligently at an excessive speed with full lights on at the time of accident. He also failed to exercise due care and caution, came towards the Jeep, with the result, driver of the Jeep took turn to the left to avoid the accident, but stuck against a tree. Truck driver was in the employment of Mahendrakumar Manilal Patel, owner of Truck, duly insured with the New India Assurance Company Limited; all the opponents liable for compensation.

(3.) Opponents-1 & 2 admit factum of accident, place and date thereof, however, allegation of rashness and negligence by driver, future loss of promotions, etc. is denied. Alternatively, it is stated that Truck driver, owner of Truck and insurer are liable for the accident. Insurance Company of Jeep denies the income of claimant and negligence of Jeep driver and states that Truck driver was responsible for the accident. Same Insurance Company (opponent-6) denies the income, age and nature of injuries suffered by the claimant. It denies the rashness and negligence of Truck driver and throws the responsibility on Jeep driver, besides, states that the claim is highly exaggerated. It is denied that claimant would get removed from service on account of the handicap. It is also denied that claimant could not drive motorcycle, car or any other vehicle. Extent of 70% disability is also denied and losses pointed out by the claimant are not admitted. Owner and driver of Truck have not filed written statement. Insurance Company, New India Assurance Company Limited, with which the two vehicles were insured, has filed separate written statements through different advocates, opposing the claim and their responsibility against each other. On the pleadings of parties, Claims Tribunal framed the following issues (Ex.18) on 16.8.1984: