TAJ TOURS AND TRAVELS Vs. PRITI N PARIKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal alongwith First Appeal No.481 of 1988 were heard together. First Appeal No.418 of 1988 was settled by parties by filing consent terms. The two appeals arise from common Award dated April 20, 1987 declared by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thane in Motor Accident Claim No.335 of 1983 and Motor Accident Claim No.325 of 1983. The claim in Motor Accident Claim No.335 of 1983 is settled while the claim in Motor Accident Claim No.325 of 1983 survives for consideration in this appeal. We had suggested to the claimant to settle this dispute also as the claim was comparatively small but the claimant, who is a practising doctor, took cantankerous attitude and we were unable to persuade the claimant to settle the dispute. We propose to examine the appeal as well as cross-objections filed by the respondent on merits.

(2.) DR. Nigam Parikh, aged about 41 years, was a practising surgeon at Mehsana in the state of Gujarat. DR. Parikh was one of the leading surgeons in Mehsana while his wife, DR. Priti, who was also a medical practitioner, was running a maternity hospital at Mehsana. Mehsana is situated at a distance of about 76 km. from Ahmedabad. The couple had two children, son Utkarsh, aged about 15 years, and daughter Niyati, aged about 8 years. DR.Nigam Parikh, with his family members and a friend, Kesubhai Patel and cousin Aswin Parikh, had travelled down to Bombay for purchasing some hospital equipments. The family had travelled in their Fiat car bearing registration number G J U 9 2 2 5. The family proceeded to Mehsana from Bombay in the early morning at 5.00 a.m. on June 13, 1983. DR. Nigam Parikh was driving the car and his wife Priti and son Utkarsh were sitting next to him. The other members were occupying the rear seat. At about 7.00 a.m., the car reached village Ranvile on Bombay-Ahmedabad highway. The luxury passenger bus bearing number M L S 7 9 9 4 came from opposite direction and dashed against the car of DR. Nigam Parikh. The result of the collision was that DR. Priti suffered injuries alongwith the two children. The luxury bus was driven by Kalyan Vallabhabhai and after the collision, the bus went in the nearby field and travelled to a distance of more than 300 ft.

(3.) MR. Kudroli, learned counsel, has filed cross-objections on behalf of Dr. Priti claiming that larger amount of compensation should have been awarded under the head "loss of income in future". As in our judgment the grant of any compensation under that head was erroneous, the question of increasing it does not arise and the cross objections must fail.