Dismissed

Gagusha Kamalsha Fakir v. Lalji Karshanbhai Chudasama

Gujarat HC2 Feb 2012FA/22/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge High Court of Gujarat dismissed an appellant's appeal seeking enhancement of compensation for a motor accident. The court upheld the Tribunal's assessment, noting the appellant could still drive despite the injury and awarding 12.5% bodily disability rather than 100% loss of earning capacity. The appeal was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; the Tribunal's award of Rs. 65,800/- with interest stands affirmed.

Gagusha Kamalsha Fakir Vs Lalji Karshanbhai Chudasama — Motor Accident Claims | Gujarat HC (2012)

¶1

FA/22/2004

¶2

1/3

¶3

JUDGMENT

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶5

FIRST APPEAL No. 22 of 2004

¶6

For Approval and Signature:

¶7

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI

¶8

=========================================================

¶9

1^{Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed} to see the judgment ?

¶10

2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

¶11

3^{Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy} of the judgment ?

¶12

Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the 4 constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?

¶13

5^{Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge} ?

¶14

=========================================================

¶15

GAGUSHA KAMALSHA FAKIR - Appellant(s)

¶16

Versus

¶17

LALJI KARSHANBHAI CHUDASAMA & 2 - Defendant(s)

¶18

=========================================================

¶19

Appearance :

¶20

MR AR SHAIKHfor Appellant(s) : 1,
RULE SERVED for Defendant(s) : 1 - 2.
MS AMEE YAJNIK for Defendant(s) : 3,

¶21

=========================================================

¶22

CORAM :HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI

¶23

Date : 02/02/2012

¶24

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶25

1.0 This appeal is directed against the judgement and award dated

¶26

24.02.2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Jamnagar in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.191 of 1995 whereby the

¶27

FA/22/2004

¶28

2/3

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

Tribunal awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 65,800/- along with interest @ 9% from the date of application till its realization.

¶31

2.0 On 03.03.1996 at about 2.00 o’ clock at night the appellant was driving truck No. GTR 3898. At that time a truck bearing registration No. G.T.W 8808 came from opposite side dashed with him. As a result of this the appellant sustained injuries and there is also damage to the truck. He therefore, filed the aforesaid claim petition before the Tribunal which came to be partly allowed by passing the aforesaid award. This appeal is at the instance of claimant for enhancement of compensation.

¶32

3.0 Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant contended that the learned Tribunal ought to have considered that loss of earning capacity should be 100% as the profession of the appellant was driving and because of disability he is unable to drive vehicle and that the learned Tribunal erred in not considering 25% disability as per certificate Exh. 39.

¶33

4.0 Heard learned advocate for the appellant and perused the documents on record. As regards the disability is concerned, the appellant had produced disability certificate at Exh. 39 issued by Dr. Solanki, a Govt Orthopedic surgeon showing that the appellant sustained permanent partial physical impairment of 25% of the limb,. However, the appellant filed pursis at Exh. 38 requesting that he has no

¶34

FA/22/2004

¶35

3/3

¶36

JUDGMENT

¶37

objection if his disability for the body as a whole is considered at 12.5%.It therefore becomes clear that the appellant sustained permanent bodily disability of 12.5% for the body as a whole. Considering the disability certificate Exh. 39 along with pursis Exh. 38 there is nothing that in future it would be the totally difficult for the appellant to drive a vehicle. The appellant did not examine any Doctor to show that the injury sustained by the appellant was such that even in future he cannot drive a vehicle. Even in the disability certificate Exh. 39, it is only stated that on account of disability there would be difficulty in sitting by crossed-legs and squatting. Hence, the disability assessed by the Tribunal has just and proper. The amount awarded under the different is also just and proper.

¶38

5.0 The learned Advocate for the appellant could not persuade this court to take a different view of the matter. I am in complete agreement with the reasoning adopted and findings arrived at by the Tribunal.

¶39

6.0 In the premises aforesaid I do not find any merits in the appeal. The same is therefore dismissed.

¶40

(K.S.JHAVERI, J.)

¶41

niru*

Gagusha Kamalsha Fakir v. Lalji Karshanbhai Chudasama

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gagusha Kamalsha Fakir v. Lalji Karshanbhai Chudasama

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jivabhai Karimbhai Vs Gitaben Navinbhai

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mahamadbhai Salambhai Arab

Jayantilal Popatlal Patel Vs Heirs of Govindbhai Odhavji Karchaliya & Pattani:

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Nasimben Salimbhai Bava

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Shantaben W/O Vahjibhai Nathu-Bhai

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Shantiben Bijal Barariya,Wd/O Decd,Bijal Kheta