Partly allowed

Laxmanbhai Parsingbhai Bhuriya v. Lalbhai Kantibhai Bariya

Gujarat HC14 Dec 2022FA/782/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed this appeal partly, holding that the Tribunal erred in accepting the claimant's self-stated income of Rs 15,000 without cogent evidence. The Court enhanced the compensation to Rs 2,18,878 based on statutory minimum wages and awarded the balance of the excess with interest. The file was remanded to the Tribunal.

What did the court decide?

Compensation increased to Rs 2,18,878; balance of Rs 47,328 with interest to be deposited within eight weeks by respondents.

Laxmanbhai Parsingbhai Bhuriya Vs Lalbhai Kantibhai… — Motor Accident Claims | Gujarat HC (2022)

¶1

C/FA/782/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/12/2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 782 of 2017

¶4

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

¶5

HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI

¶6

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

¶7

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

¶8

2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

¶9

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

¶10

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

¶11

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

¶12

LAXMANBHAI PARSINGBHAI BHURIYA

¶13

Versus

¶14

LALBHAI KANTIBHAI BARIYA & 5 other(s)

¶15

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

¶16

Appearance: MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR ANAL S SHAH(3988) for the Defendant(s) No. 3 MR ANKIT SHAH(6371) for the Defendant(s) No. 6 RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,4,5

¶17

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

¶18

CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI

¶19

Date : 14/12/2022

¶20

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶21

Challenge is given to the judgment and award 30.7.2016 passed by learned Motor Accident Claim

¶22

Page 1 of 5

¶23

C/FA/782/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/12/2022

¶24

Tribunal Panchmahal at Godhra (Aux) in MACP No. 97 of 2011.

¶25

It is the case of the claimant injured, that he was a passenger in chakda rickshaw bearing registration no. GJ-127-U-5896 and on 27.8.2010 the accident occurred in the evening at 18:30 hours when the applicant along with others were heading towards their home at Thumbla village. The accident occurred at Vavdipur village at Godhra Ahmedabad highway, when the driver of the tractor bearing registration no. GJ-17-D-5279 came in full speed and in a rash and negligent manner lost control on the vehicle and dashed with the chakda rickshaw. Thus the applicant sustained injuries.

¶26

Learned Advocate Mr. Modi for the appellant submitted that it was urged before the learned Tribunal that the applicant was Mason and was earning Rs 15,000/- per month. The learned Tribunal has considered only Rs 3000/- as just and reasonable. Learned advocate Mr. Modi stated that had the learned judge not believed the applicant pleading regarding the income than it should have granted minimum wages. He further submits that the amount under the head of pain, shock and suffering is also very less since the applicant was hospitalised for about 10 days and hence also urged to increase the amount under the head of attendance

¶27

Page 2 of 5

¶28

C/FA/782/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/12/2022

¶29

charges, transportation charges and expense under special diet.

¶30

Learned advocate Mr. Shah for the Insurance Company respondent no.3 submitted that the learned Tribunal has considered the evidence on record to consider the income which granted is just and reasonable while submitting that 16% physical disability has been admitted by both the parties. The amount so granted under the head of future loss of income requires no interference and also stated that the reasonable amount has been granted under all the heads.

¶31

The learned advocate for the applicant could not provide any cogent and reasonable evidence to support his case that claimant is doing masonary work. Thus taking into consideration the date of accident as 27.8.2010 and following the minimum wages schedule notified by the state assessment at Rs 4,050/- as monthly income could be considered. The claimant was 33 years at the time of accident and the learned Trial Court has rightly considered the multiplier of 16 and considering the same annual income, the claimant was sustain loss of Rs 7,776/-(Rs 4050X16% x 12) applying the multiplier of 16 the loss in future to the claimant is assessed as Rs 1,24,416/- ( Rs 7776x16). Under the head of loss of future income the claimant would be entitled to Rs

¶32

Page 3 of 5

¶33

C/FA/782/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/12/2022

¶34

1,124,416/-.

¶35

Considering the documentary evidence on record, the injury sustained and the term of hospitalisation the amount granted under the head of pain,shock and suffering is less so under the said head Rs 20,000/- is granted. The claimant has expended Rs 56,362/- as medical expense which has been granted by the Tribunal.

¶36

Since the income is assessed as Rs 4050/- in accordance with the minimum wages schedule and the learned Tribunal has considered the actual loss of two months. Thus, following the same the claimant would be entitled to Rs 8,100/- under the said head of actual loss. In proportion to the days of hospitalisation to the medical expense undertaken, the amount under attendant charges, transportation and for food is required to be enhanced as Rs 10,000/-.

¶37

8. Thus, compensation would meet as follows :

¶38

Particulars	Amount
Future loss of income	Rs 1,24,416/-
Pain, shock and suffering	Rs 20,000/-
Medical expense	Rs 56,362/-
Actual loss of income	Rs 8,100/-
Attendant expense, transportation and for food expense	Rs 10,000/-
Total	Rs 2,18,878/-

¶39

Page 4 of 5

¶40

C/FA/782/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/12/2022

¶41

The Tribunal has granted Rs 1,71,550/-, as per the calculation made hereinabove, the applicant is entitled to excess amount of Rs 47, 328/- at 7.5% interest till the date of deposit, concerned respondents to deposit the amount within eight weeks of this order.

¶42

Accordingly this Appeal is partly allowed. R & P to be send back to the concerned Tribunal forthwith. Award to be amended accordingly.

¶43

(GITA GOPI,J)

¶44

MARY VADAKKAN

¶45

Page 5 of 5

Laxmanbhai Parsingbhai Bhuriya v. Lalbhai Kantibhai Bariya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxmanbhai Parsingbhai Bhuriya v. Lalbhai Kantibhai Bariya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pushpaben W/O Dhirubhai Chhaganbhai Parmar Vs State of Gujarat

Nitin Shashikant Rathod Vs Isha Suppliers Thro Proprietor

Hardik Manharlal Kotecha Vs State of Gujarat

Kishorpari @ Trilokpari Gajrajpari Goswami Thro Goswami Minaben Trilokpari Vs State of Gujarat

Manubhai Neviyabhai @ Nevabhai Parmar Vs State of Gujarat

Ahmadhusen Valimahammad Saiyed Vs State of Gujarat