FA/927/1987 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 927 of 1987 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. ========================================================= HIRABHAI MADHABHAI PATEL - Appellant(s) Versus BABUBHAI MOHANBHAI PATEL DELETED & 2 - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR PS PATEL for Appellant(s) : 1, None for Defendant(s) : 1 - 2. NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Defendant(s) : 3, MR SANDIP C SHAH for Defendant(s) : 3, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 09/05/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. By way of this appeal, the appellant-original applicant has challenged the judgment and order dated 16/7/1986 passed by FA/927/1987 2/4 JUDGMENT the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, S.K. (Auxiliary) at Himmatnagar in the Motor Accident Claim Application No.29 of 1983 whereby the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal has partly allowed the application and awarded the amount of compensation of Rs.28,062/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the application till the date of realization with proportionate costs. This appeal is filed for the enhancement of the award passed by the Tribunal. 2. The facts in brief leading rise to filing of the appeal is as under: 2.1) The claim petition is filed by the victim of a motor accident to get compensation for the injuries suffered by him as per the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act. It is the case of the applicant that on 28/7/1982 at 10:15 p.m., he was driving his motor cycle No.GRF 65 from Kutchi Society to Ahmedabad. One Chimanbhai was pillion rider on that motor cycle. When the motor cycle was passing on correct side of the road, the opponent no.1 came driving jeep No.GAD 5244 from the opposite side with an excessive speed and in negligent manner, so he could not control the same and had come on wrong side and dashed with the motor cycle. So, the applicant was injured and his motor cycle was damaged. He had suffered a fracture of right leg and had also suffered an injury on forehead. He FA/927/1987 3/4 JUDGMENT was given preliminary treatment at Civil Hospital, Himmatnagar and then he was removed to the nursing home of Dr.Dinubhai Patel at Ahmedabad. He was kept as indoor patient from 28/7/1982 to 8/8/1982. He was required to visit Ahmedabad for follow up treatment on six occasions. Then he was readmitted for three days as indoor patient and was advised operation. Then on 4/1/1982 he was admitted in the Nursing Home of Dr.P.N.Shah at Himmatnagar and he was operated. Bone grafting was done after taking done from left leg. He was kept as indoor patient from 4/1/1982 to 21/1/1983. He had to spend money for medicine, rich diet, attendance charges and conveyance charges. He has also suffered loss of income during treatment period and has also suffered loss of future earning. His motor cycle was also got repaired. He could not attend his service so he had to take leave and has suffered economic loss. His increment has also become less, and hence he has suffered permanent loss till retirement. The opponent no.1 was driving the jeep while in employment of opponent no.2 and insured by opponent no.3, so all of them are liable to pay compensation. Hence the present petition is filed to recover Rs.42,600/- as compensation from opponents jointly and severally, along with running interest and cost. FA/927/1987 4/4 JUDGMENT 2.2) On completion of the pleadings, the Tribunal has awarded the compensation of Rs.28,062/- as stated above. Hence, this appeal. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the Tribunal has not considered future loss of income even though the claimant has claimed. It is true that the Tribunal has awarded Rs.3,500/- under the head of future loss of income and has not awarded the said amount on the basis of income. 4. Keeping in mind 7/2% disability and taking Rs.75/- per month as loss of income, the loss will come for Rs.900/-. Keeping in mind the age of the victim, 15 multiplier is just and proper. Therefore, the applicant will be entitled to Rs.13,500/- under the head of future loss of income whereas the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.3,500/-. Therefore, the application will entitle for Rs.10,000/- additional with the running interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of application. 5. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. (K.S.Jhaveri, J.) (ila)