FA/230/1990 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 230 of 1990 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 ? ========================================================= RANCHHODBHAI MANILAL PATEL - Appellant(s) Versus RAVAL KHODABHAI LILABHAI & 5 - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR AN PATEL for Appellant(s) : 1, DS AFF.NOT FILED (N) for Defendant(s) : 1 - 2, 5, MR KF DALAL for Defendant(s) : 3, 6, NOTICE SERVED for Defendant(s) : 4, MS HINA DESAI for Defendant(s) : 6, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 14/03/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1.0 This Appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 11.07.1988 passed by the M.A.C.T. (Aux.), FA/230/1990 2/4 JUDGMENT Mehsana [for short, “the Tribunal”] in M.A.C. Petition No. 685 of 1984 whereby, the said claim petition was partly allowed. 2.0 The facts in brief are as under; 2.1 On 14.08.1983, while the petitioner was proceeding to Siddhpur from Mehsana in a Matador bearing registration No. GRW – 3, along with the dead body of his father for performing the final rituals at Sidhpur, a Truck bearing registration No. GRW – 94, driven by respondent no. 1 herein, dashed the said Matador, driven by respondent no. 4 and belonging to respondent no. 5 herein. As a result of the said accident, the appellant suffered severe bodily injuries and was taken to Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad for necessary treatment. 2.2 The appellant, thereafter, filed claim petition before the Tribunal, claiming compensation of Rs.1,30,000. The Tribunal, after hearing the parties and considering the evidence on record, partly allowed the claim petition whereby, opponent nos. 1, 2 & 3 therein were jointly and severely held liable to pay an amount of Rs.62,300/- while opponent nos. 4 & 5 therein were jointly and severely held liable to pay an amount of Rs.26,700/- to the claimant with proportionate costs and interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the application till its realization. Being aggrieved by the said award, the appellant has preferred this Appeal for FA/230/1990 3/4 JUDGMENT enhancement of the said amount of compensation. 3.0 Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. Before the Tribunal, the appellant had produced several documentary evidence, viz. the complaint at Exhibit – 25, panchnama at Exhibit – 21, the medical records at Exhibits 22 & 23, the disability certificates at Exhibits 26 & 27, etc. The Tribunal after considering the evidence on record, more particularly, the complaint at Exhibit – 25 and panchanama at Exhibit – 21, recorded a finding that the drivers of both the vehicles were negligent at the time of the accident and accordingly, held the liability between the driver of the Matador and the driver of the Truck at 30 : 70. I have gone through the documentary evidence on record regarding the same and have no hesitation in upholding the said finding arrived at by the Tribunal. 4.0 While dealing with the aspect of compensation, the Tribunal has minutely looked into several aspects of the case. The appellant was hospitalized for a total number of 32 days and had suffered 40% disability of the body as a whole. The Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the appellant at Rs.600/- and since he was aged 32 years at the time of the accident, had adopted a multiplier of 15 years. Considering the evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal was completely justified in awarding the amount in question looking to the entire evidence available FA/230/1990 4/4 JUDGMENT on record. No case for enhancement of the amount of compensation is made out. 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. 5.0 For the foregoing reasons, the Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. [K. S. JHAVERI, J.] Pravin/*