FA/30/1986 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 30 of 1986 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI ========================================================= 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 ? ========================================================= JAGDISH POPATLAL MISTRI - Appellant(s) Versus MANILAL KARSANDAS CHAUHAN (DELETED) & 5 - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR MC BHATT for Appellant(s) : 1, DELETED for Defendant(s) : 1, NOTICE SERVED for Defendant(s) : 2 - 4, 6, None for Defendant(s) : 4, MR KM PARIKH for Defendant(s) : 5, MR BR SHAH for Defendant(s) : 5, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 13/05/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This Appeal is directed against the FA/30/1986 2/4 JUDGMENT common judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar [for short, “the Tribunal”] in M.A.C.P. No. 205/1982 to 207/1982, 10/1983 and 24/1984 dated whereby, M.A.C.P. No. 205/1982 and 206/1982 were dismissed and M.A.C.P. No. 207/1982, 10/1983 and 24/1984 were partly allowed. This Appeal is preferred against the impugned award passed in M.A.C.P. No. 10 of 1983. 2.0 The brief facts of the case are that the appellant, Original Claimant of M.A.C.P. No. 10 of 1983, had filed the claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.70,000/- inter alia stating that on 09.03.1982 while he was traveling in a Luxury Bus bearing registration No. GTK – 7999 on the Himmatnagar – Ahmedabad Highway, it met with an accident with a Truck bearing registration No. GTY – 4488. As a result of the said accident, the appellant sustained severe bodily injuries and also suffered certain percentage of disability for the body as a whole. It is the case of the appellant that the accident took place as a result of the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Luxury Bus. 2.1 In the said claim petition, the opponents filed their written statements. The Tribunal FA/30/1986 3/4 JUDGMENT framed the issues. After hearing the parties and considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition. Being aggrieved by the impugned award, the appellant has approached this Court by way of this Appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation. 3. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. The main contention raised by the learned Advocate for the appellant is that the Tribunal has committed serious error in appreciating the evidence on record inasmuch as though Medical Certificate dated 14.12.1984 was produced on record, the disability assessed by the Tribunal is on a much lower side. It appears from the record that the accident in question took place on 09.03.1982 and that the appellant was admitted in the Hospital on the same day for necessary treatment. After undergoing necessary treatment, the appellant was discharged from the Hospital on 21.03.1982. No medical case-papers have been produced on record to show that the appellant had obtained any follow-up check-up / treatment after being discharged from the Hospital on 21.03.1982. 4. It appears that the appellant had visited the Doctor concerned only on 12.09.1984, i.e. 2½ Years after the accident in question. Moreover, FA/30/1986 4/4 JUDGMENT no Expert has been examined in support of the claim of the appellant regarding disability. 5. Considering the aforesaid factual aspects, I am of the view that the Tribunal was completely justified in passing the impugned award. I am in complete agreement with the reasonings given by and the findings arrived at by the Tribunal and hence, find no reasons to interfere in this Appeal. 6. For the foregoing reasons, the Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. [K. S. JHAVERI, J.] Pravin/*