IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 1829 of 1983 For Approval and Signature: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE ============================================================== ============================================================== GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION - Appellant(s) Versus SHANTILAL NYALCHAND SHAH - Defendant(s) ============================================================== Appearance : MRS KETTY A MEHTA for Petitioner No(s).: 1. MR HARDIK C RAWAL for Petitioner No(s).: 1. MR ARUN K SHAH for Respondent No(s).: 1. ================================================================== Date : 04/08/2005 ORAL JUDGMENT 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 ? CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE 1. This appeal arises out of a judgment and award rendered by an M.A.C.Tribunal (Main) Ahmedabad (Rural) at Narol, in M.A.C.Petition No.1 of 1982 on 18th April,1983. 2. The claim arose out of a vehicular accident that occurred on 1st July,1981, while the respondent (hereinafter referred to as “the claimant”) was travelling in the said Bus and was sitting in the last seat of the Bus on the right hand side. The said Bus had brushed up with on coming Truck. As a result of which, the claimant sustained injuries of his right hand. As a result of injuries, his index finger and little finger were amputed and injuries also resulted into rendering the middle fingers of right hand practically non-functional. The claimant, therefore, claimed an amount of Rs.1 lac by way of compensation. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.77,000/- by way of compensation under various heads with an interest @ 6% per annum with proportionate cost. 2.1 Aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the owner of the Bus i.e. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “the appellant”) has preferred this appeal. 3. Learned Advocate Mr.H.C.Raval appearing for the appellant has taken this Court through the judgment and award of the Tribunal and other available material with him. 4. According to learned Advocate Mr.Raval, the Tribunal has committed an error in assessing the amount of compensation under various heads. The main focus of learned Advocate was on the disability aspect. He submitted that according to doctor, the disability sustained by the claimant was 70% in respect of right upper limb and by Rule of Thumb, it should have been accepted as half of it i.e. 35% in respect of body as a whole, instead the Tribunal has considered the disability at 100% while awarding compensation. 5. No one appears for the claimant. On earlier occasion also, when the matter was called out on 30th June,2005, no one appeared for the claimant – respondent. 6. So far as the negligence aspect is concerned, the claimant was a passenger in the Bus and as such, no negligence can be attributed to him. Learned Advocate Mr.Raval also, in all fairness, has not canvassed any argument in this regard. 7. The Court is, therefore, required to examine only the quantum aspect in this appeal. 8. It appears that the Tribunal has taken into consideration the period of hospitalization, the treatment and its nature, the amounts spent on treatment and resultant disability, as emerging from depositions of the claimant and Dr.Vakeria. The Tribunal has also taken into consideration the nature of work that the claimant was engaged in and effect of disability thereon, and came to a conclusion that though the physical permanent partial disability is to the extent of 70%, the total functional disability of right hand has to be assessed as 100% qua the claimant looking to his vocation. The Tribunal has assessed the income of the claimant at Rs.350/- as against the claim of Rs.650/- per month as claimed by the claimant. The Tribunal adopted a multiplier of 12 and considering all these aspects, awarded a compensation of Rs.77,000/- which can be bifurcated under various heads as under : Rs.1200/- Medical Expenditure 8.1 It appears that the Tribunal has, while assessing future economic loss, assessed the income @ Rs.300/- as against Rs.350/- while assessing actual loss of income. 9. Considering the vocation that the claimant was pursuing viz. Manufacture of sewing threads with the help of small machine requiring use of both the hands and considering that he was expected to be a right hander, there appears no error on part of the Tribunal in assessing the disability at 100%. The Tribunal has also taken a conservative approach while assessing future economic loss while assessing future income @ Rs.300/- per month, where according to Tribunal, this income of the claimant was assessed at Rs.350/- per month while computing actual loss of income. In the opinion of this Court, therefore, there appears no reason for interference in exercise of appellate powers. The appeal must fail and stands dismissed. The judgment and award under challenge are confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs. (A.L.DAVE,J.) Rs.900/- Special Diet Rs.750/- Transportation Rs.300/- Medicine Rs.600/- Nursing Charges Rs.5250/- Under head of actual loss of income. Rs.20000/- Under head of pain, shock and suffering. Rs.43,200/- Under head of future economic loss. Rs.700/- Cost of operation. Total Rs.76,900/- (rounded off Rs.77,000/-) (Vipul)