FA/2190/2005 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 2190 of 2005 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA ========================================================= 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 ? ========================================================= AHMEDABAD MINICIPAL CORPORATION - Appellant(s) Versus PURSHOTTAMBHAI ATRAMBHIA ZALA (VANKAR) & 1 - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR HS MUNSHAW for Appellant(s) : 1, MR MAYUR RAJGURU for Defendant(s) : 1, SERVED BY AFFIX.-(R) for Defendant(s) : 2, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA Date : 14/02/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The appellant has, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, preferred appeal from the award dated 21.10.2003 of M.A.C.T, Ahmedabad (Rural) in M.A.C.P. No.555 of 1992, FA/2190/2005 2/3 JUDGMENT wherein, as against the claim of Rs.2,00,000/-, the claimant was awarded Rs.67,452/- as compensation, even as there was no dispute about the fact that the claimant had sustained fracture in left leg due to accident on 01.04.1992 and had to undergo hospitalisation for three months. Even after such prolonged treatment, the accidental injury resulted into amputation of left leg below knee and hence, the Tribunal considered permanent partial disability to the extent of 18% against the claim of 20%. In view of fixed income by way of monthly salary from the postal department and the age of 40 years, the Tribunal awarded Rs.25,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering, Rs.9312/- for loss of income due to the claimant remaining on leave at least for four months and Rs.25,140/- towards future economic loss, applying multiplier of only five. Adding thereto amounts towards medical expenses, attendance charges and special diet, total sum of Rs.67,452/- was awarded with 9% interest and cost. 2. Learned counsel Mr.Baghel, appearing with learned advocate Mr.H.S. Munshaw, took the Court through the Record and Proceedings and pointed out the contradictions in the oral deposition on record but could not make out any ground for reducing the amount of compensation awarded by FA/2190/2005 3/3 JUDGMENT the impugned award. In fact, at the end of perusal of the record, and more particularly the depositions of main witnesses at Exh.23 and Exh.24, it was fairly clear that the respondent- claimant had been severely injured upon the bus owned by the appellant dashing with him from behind. 3. No ground having been made out to interfere with the impugned award, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (D.H.WAGHELA, J.) Hitesh