FA/1057/1990 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 1057 of 1990 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 ? ====================================== ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD AND OTHERS Versus VINAY ISHWARBHAI PATEL ====================================== Appearance : MR ADIL MIRZA with MR RR MARSHALL for Appellant Nos.1, 3. DELETED for Appellant No.2. MR BR PARIKH for Respondent. ====================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA Date : 11/04/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This appeal under the erstwhile provisions of Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 was pressed only for reducing the amount of compensation awarded by the impugned award dated 2nd FA/1057/1990 2/3 JUDGMENT August 1989, on the grounds that the disability to the extent of 76%, as certified by a doctor was limited to the lower part of the body, and that the claimant could have been presumed to be able to earn something at least out of supervision of his agricultural land. 2. It was submitted by learned counsel, Mr.Adil Mirza appearing with Mr.R.R.Marshall for the appellants that the tribunal had, while accepting the disability of 76% of the lower limb, omitted to reduce it to half for the body as a whole and calculated compensation on that basis. It was pointed out from para 44 and 51 of the impugned award that Rs.40,000/- was awarded towards pain, shock and suffering resulting from three fractures and Rs.60,000/- was awarded under the same head for the head injury. It was pointed out that the claimant claimed to be earning out of his agricultural land, which was still available to the claimant and regular income could be derived by employing necessary labourers and supervising the agricultural operations. 3. Learned counsel, Mr.B.R.Parikh appearing for the respondent - claimant submitted that the physical and mental condition of the victim of the accident, even after three years of suffering and treatment, was worse to an invalid person insofar as the claimant needed two persons to move him and, due to his mental condition, he was unable to think, understand or reply properly. 4. It was seen from the impugned award and the evidence on record that the claimant had suffered multiple fractures and serious head injuries due to which he was unable to walk and he had initially remained unconscious for a period of almost 45 days. Even when he entered the box after three years of the accident, it was noticed that he FA/1057/1990 3/3 JUDGMENT was lifted by two persons, he was unable to stand on his legs and he was unable to understand the questions put to him. Under these circumstances, obviously the remaining life of the claimant, having his widowed mother and an invalid brother in the family, was a burden not only for himself but his family members and his disability was, in fact, required to be counted as 100%. So his income was assessed at Rs.1,000/- per month before the accident and the yearly loss of earning was taken to be Rs.9,000/- per year to arrive at the figure of Rs.1,35,000/- after applying multiplier of 15. The amount under the head of pain, shock and suffering was rightly bifurcated into two parts since the pain, shock and suffering involved in the injury and treatment of fractures was different from the injury to the head which would have caused such suffering as cannot be described in words and cannot be compensated in terms of money. In view of absence of any other person to take care of the family, the total amount of compensation, i.e. Rs.2,71,000/-, with interest and cost, is by no stretch of imagination on higher side and there being no scope of reduction in the amount of compensation, the appeal is dismissed with cost. (D.H.Waghela, J.) /malek