LAWS(GJH)-2018-9-360

KARSHANBHAI SAJANBHAI MARU Vs. HIRABHAI RAMABHAI KODIYATAR

Decided On September 17, 2018
Karshanbhai Sajanbhai Maru Appellant
V/S
Hirabhai Ramabhai Kodiyatar Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned advocate Mr.Tushar L. Sheth for the appellant, learned advocate Mr.Vibhuti Nanvati for the respondent no.3 and learned advocate Mr.Alkesh N. Shah for the respondent no.6. Rest of the respondents though served, remain absent.

(2.) The appellant herein is original claimant before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Porbandar in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.84 of 2011 wherein respondents no.1 to 6 are opponents no.1 to 6 respectively being driver, owner and insurer of vehicles involved in the accident being Truck No.GJ-25 T-5435 and Trailer GJ-10 W-7171. Respondent no.4 and 5 being driver and owner of the Trailer No.GJ-10 W-7171 were deleted from the cause-title considering that appeal is mainly for quantum of compensation and when insurance company does not dispute its liability, because no notice was served upon them.

(3.) I have perused the record. The claimant has preferred the claim petition claiming Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation for injury sustained by him in vehicular accident which took place on 02.02.2011. At the relevant time claimant was working as a cleaner in Truck No.GJ-25 T-5435 and when such truck was moving near Khanpur Crossing on Dholaka-Bagodara road, the driver of offending vehicle - Trailer No.GJ10 W-7171 had came in full speed and stopped on the middle of the road all of sudden and thereby, the truck of the victim had dashed with such trailer which resulted into serious injuries on left leg of the victim which was ultimately required to be amputated. For such injuries Dr. Sagar T. Chudasama has certified disability as 80% and therefore after allowing both the sides to adduce their evidence, the tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.6,32,680/- on different heads as under, considering Rs.3000/- as monthly income of the victim and taking 60% disability for body as a whole and applying 16 as suitable multiplier when victim was aged about 34 years:-