SALIMBHAI IBRAHIMBHAI CHANDA Vs. SHANTILAL HARKHABHAI VANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned advocate Mr. M. I. Mansuri appearing with Mr. Mohsin M. Hakim for the appellant and learned advocate Mr. H.C. Naidu for the respondent No.3.

(2.) Since the appeal is mainly for quantum of compensation and non-reliance of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mallikarjun Vs. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr. reported in, 2014 14 SCC 396, the matter can be disposed of at such admission stage itself. Therefore, when appeal is only on the ground of quantum of compensation, the notice upon respondents No.1 and 2 - driver and owner, has been waived relying upon the decision of A. Robert Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 1999 AIR(SC) 2977. It is to be recollected here that none of the original opponents being driver, owner and insurer of the vehicle, which was involved in the accident, have challenged the award and therefore, it is clear and certain that there is no dispute regarding nature of accident, its result and liability of the Insurance Company to pay compensation to the victim of road accident by indemnifying the owner of the vehicle. Therefore, minute details of all such facts are not reproduced herein, since it is well described in impugned judgment as well as in the pleadings.

(3.) However, it may be recollected here that appellant - original injured claimant was injured in a vehicular accident that took place on 22.1.2004 when driver of the Jeep No.GJ-17C-3454 has driven his vehicle rashly and negligently. Because of such driving, the Jeep turned turtle and the claimant, who was passenger in the Jeep had received several injuries. Even after appropriate treatment, the injuries have resulted into 23.5% permanent partial disability. It is agreed between the parties before the Tribunal to consider it as 9% for the body as a whole. The claimant was aged about 14 years at the time of accident and therefore, when he was minor, decision of Mallikarjun (supra) would be attracted for deciding just and reasonable compensation. The relevant paragraph being paragraph 12 of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder:-