FA/322/1988 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 322 of 1988 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? -Yes. 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? -No. 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? -No. 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 ? -No. 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? -No. ========================================================= GIRISHBHAI FULABHAI KACHHIA - Appellant(s) Versus ADAMBHAI RASULBHAI MANSURI & 2 - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR HM PARIKH for Appellant(s) : 1, None for Defendant(s) : 1, MR MD PANDYA for Defendant(s) : 2, MR SATTA FOR MR AV TRIVEDI for Defendant(s) : 3, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 16/05/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. By way of this appeal, the appellant-claimant has challenged the judgment and order dated 29/3/1985 passed by the Motor FA/322/1988 2/5 JUDGMENT Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary) Kheda at Nadiad in the Motor Accident Claim Petition No.616 of 1982 (main) along with other petitions whereby the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has partly allowed the Motor Accident Claim Petition No.616 of 1982 and awarded the amount of compensation of Rs.21,585/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the application till payment with proportionate costs. 2. The facts in brief leading rise to filing of the appeal is as under: 2.1) Here the group claim petition arose out of the accident took place on 11/11/1981 at 6:00 p.m. between Matador No.GJU 8821 and S.T. Bus No.GTH 5082 between Malavad to Sojitra near Vasai stand. The claimant of MACP No.616 of 1982 is the driver of the Matador No.GJU 8821. He has contended that after he crossed the culvert near Malavad, ST Bus No.GTH 5082 came from the opposite side with an excessive speed and knocked on the front portion of the Matador and as a result he received serious injuries on the leg and head and there was a fracture of the femur bone. He has claimed an amount of compensation of Rs.95,000/- on account of pain, shock, suffering, loss of waged and future loss of wages on account of permanent partial disability received by him and also claimed medical charges. FA/322/1988 3/5 JUDGMENT 2.2) On completion of the pleadings, the Tribunal has awarded the compensation of Rs.21,585/- as stated above. Hence, this appeal. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the Tribunal has committed error in holding the contributory negligence and also erred in holding that the accident has occurred because of rash and negligent driving of the Matador. There was no negligence on the part of the Matador as it was driven on the correct side of the road. He has further contended that looking to the evidence on record, the Tribunal has committed error in holding the liability of negligence in the ratio of 75:25. At the most, it should be 90:10. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. The main contention raised by the learned advocate for the appellant is with regard to the aspect of negligence. According the contention raised by the appellant, the amount of compensation under the head of future loss of income is required to be enhanced as the Tribunal has not awarded proper amount under the head of future loss of income. In para 20, while discussing the evidence on record, the income of the applicant is taken as Rs.300/-. It appears that while computing the compensation under the head of loss of future FA/322/1988 4/5 JUDGMENT income, the Tribunal has committed an error which is apparent on the face of the record. 5. For deciding the amount of compensation, it would be relevant to refer to a Full Bench decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and others vs. Trilok Chandra & others, reported in 1996 (3) GLR 136. In that decision, the Court reiterated the method of working out as to what would be a 'just' compensation. Following the principle laid down in the aforesaid decision, it appears that the Tribunal has committed an error in computing compensation under the head of loss of future income. However, so far as compensations under the other heads are concerned, no interference is required by this Court. 6. As per principle laid down in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation's case (supra), the average monthly income of the appellant ought to have been assessed at Rs.450/- ([Rs.600 + Rs.300 = Rs.900]. [Rs.900/2 = Rs.450]). Now, since the appellant has suffered 30% disability, the monthly loss of income would come to Rs.135/-, i.e. Rs. 1,620/- per year. After applying the multiplier of 15, the loss of future income comes to Rs.24,300/-. Since, the Tribunal has already awarded the amount of Rs.16,200/- under the said head, the appellant will be entitled for an additional amount of Rs.8,100/- (Rs.24,300/- FA/322/1988 5/5 JUDGMENT minus Rs.16,200/-=Rs.8,100/-) along with interest. No other contention has been raised by the learned advocates for the parties. 7. In the premises aforesaid, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the appellant shall be entitled for an additional amount of Rs.8,100/- (Rupees eight thousand one hundred only) from the date of filing of application i.e. on 21/6/1982, along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum till realisation. The other part of the impugned award stands confirmed. No order is passed against Insurance Company. 8. With the above modification, the appeal stands disposed of. No order as to costs. (K.S.Jhaveri, J.) (ila)