FA/3223/2005 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 3223 of 2005 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT ========================================= = 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================= = NIVEDITA DEEPAKBHAI GUPTA Versus RAJESHBHAI SHIVLAL HARIJAN C/O. CHADHA & CHADHA TRANSPORT AND OTHERS ========================================= =Appearance : MR KASHYAP R JOSHI for the Appellant SERVED BY RPAD - (R) for Defendant(s) : 1, RULE SERVED for Defendant(s) : 2, MS LILU K BHAYA for Defendant(s) : 3, ========================================= = CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT Date : 11/08/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD) FA/3223/2005 2/3 JUDGMENT 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. Having gone through the facts obtained on record, we find that a 15 years old girl has got her lower limb crushed in the accident and had undergone surgery and repair of her body. But that has not restored the grace, which a lady is required to have while she walks. 3. She has become major and at the time of her marriage, something more will be required. Regarding this, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000/-. In our considered opinion, a handicap lady needs something more than Rs.20,000/- for getting herself married and some more support for herself to attain posture and gesture, which would be required to get a match for herself. For which, in the present circumstances, kind of aids in the nature of physiotherapy and training is available and and she can undergo that, for which she would definitely require to have more amount. For that head, we consider that, instead of Rs.20,000/-, it should be Rs. 2 lakhs so that she would improve herself and persuade some young bachelor to marry her. 4. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company raised objection on this point that only Rs.80,000/- has been demanded in the appeal. Considering the price escalation and inflation, we are persuaded that there should be Rs.2 lakhs as stated hereinabove. All other findings of the learned Tribunal are approved. 5. With the aforesaid modification, the appeal is disposed of. 6. Record and proceedings be sent to the Court below immediately. (BHAGWATI PRASAD, J.) FA/3223/2005 3/3 JUDGMENT (S.R.BRAHMBHATT, J.) omkar