Parsottambhai Pratapbhai Patel vs Sureshkumar Mangarambhai Thakkar & Ors

Hasmukh D. Suthar, J

1) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 28.02.2025 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Panchmahals at Godhra (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for short), in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.226 of 2020, the appellant – original claimant has preferred the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short).

2) Heard Mr. H. M. Modi, learned Advocate for the appellant – original Claimant and Ms. K. S. Pathak, learned Advocate for the respondent no.3 – Insurance Company. The respondent nos.1 and 2 despite being duly served remained absent.

3) It is the case of the appellant – original claimant that on 06.01.2020, the claimant was standing on the side of the road in Santroa Village, at that time the opponent no.1 came by driving his car bearing Reg. No.GJ-17-AH4743, in rash and negligent manner and hit the claimant. Due to which the claimant sustained grievous fracture injuries. The offence was registered being I-C.R. No.52 of 2020 with Morva(H) Police Station. Therefore, the appellant had filed MAC Petition seeking compensation, wherein, the learned Tribunal after appreciating the evidence produced on record the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition.

4) Learned Advocate for the appellant has submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed error by considering the income of the appellant as Rs.8,070/- per month without considering the rate as per minimum wages and also erred in not considering future prospective income. Hence, he has requested to allow the present appeal.

5) Learned Advocate for the respondent – Insurance Company has opposed the present appeal and submitted that the appellant is nto entitled for any enhancement in the compensation considering 13% disablement she has suffered minor injuries and this is not a case wherein due to the injuries the disablement resulted into loss of earning of the appellant. Considering the aforesaid facts the learned Tribunal has properly considered the compensation and in absence of any material or proof of income rightly assessed the income as Rs.8,070/- of unskilled labour. Hence, she has requested to dismiss the present appeal.

6) Having heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and going through the record it appears that the learned Tribunal has considered the evidence on record and relied on the judgment in the cases of Bimla Devi Vs. H.R.T.C, reported in AIR 2009 SC 2819, and Parmeshwari Devi Vs. Amir Chand, reported in 2011 (11) SCC 635, and appreciated the evidence. The claimant has tendered the affidavit at Exhibit 18, wherein all the facts of the accident have been narrated in the chief-examination and supported the claim petition. The claimant has produced complaint at Exhibit 22, panchnama at Exhibit 23 and charge-sheet at Exhibit 28. Further, as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Govind Yadav Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in 2012(1) TAC 1 (SC), that if no proof of income is produced on the record then Tribunal has to consider prevailing rate of minimum wages in absence of evidence of monthly income of the claimant. In the present case the accident occurred on 06.01.2020 and during that time the appellant – injured was doing centering work and agriculture work and earning Rs.10,000/-, whereas, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the claimant as Rs.8,070/- which is required to be considered as per the rate of minimum wages i.e. Rs.8,278/- and hence, the income of the appellant is reassessed as Rs.8,280/- per month. It appears that the learned Tribunal has observed the age of claimant as 32 years at the time of accident and the learned Tribunal has committed error in not considering future prospect, however, this Court is of the view that in view of the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in 2017 ACJ 2700, the appellant is entitled for 40% addition towards future prospectus. Moreover, the parties have agreed to consider 13% disablement body as a whole before the learned Tribunal, therefore, once the parties have voluntarily agreed to consider 13% disablement the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in considering 13% disability of the injured.

7) Further, considering the age of claimant as 32 years at the time of accident the Tribunal has considered multiplier of 16 which as per the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. [2009 (6) SCC 121] is just and proper and no interference of this Court is required. It is worthwhile to mention here that due to inadvertent mistake / arithmetical mistake in calculation of future loss of income in the impugned judgment the multiplier of 15 is reflected which is required to be corrected as multiplier of 16.

8) Further, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.52,206/- towards medical expenditure, Rs.15,000/- towards pain shock and sufferings, Rs.15,000/- towards special diet, attendant and transportation which are just and proper. However, as this Court has reassessed the income of the appellant the amount of Rs.24,210/- awarded towards actual loss of income is reassessed as Rs.24,840/-(additional Rs.630/-).

9) Therefore, recalculating the income of the claimant as Rs.8,280/-and future prospect of 40% = Rs.3,312/- which comes to Rs.11,592/-. Now total income under the head of loss of future income is required to be considered as Rs.11,592/- x 12 x 16 x 13% / 100 = Rs.2,89,336/-. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to get additional amount of Rs.87,928/- towards loss of future income.

10) So far the argument of the learned Advocate Ms. K. S. Pathak for the Insurance Company regarding minor disablement is concerned, this Court is of the view that when the injured suffers injury whatever it is permanent or partial disablement, whether it affects the earning of the injured, is required to be considered while awarding the compensation. Hence, the argument canvassed by the learned Advocate for Insurance Company is not sustainable.

11) As discussed above, the appellant – injured – original claimant is entitled to get compensation computed as under:

Heads

Awarded by Tribunal

Reassessed by this Court

Loss of future income

Rs.2,01,408/-

Rs.2,89,336/-

including additional amount of Rs.87,928/-

Medical Expenses

Rs.52,206/-

Rs.52,206/-

Pain, shock and suffering

Rs.15,000/-

Rs.15,000/-

Special diet, attendant and transportation

Rs.15,000/-

Rs.15,000/-

Actual loss of income for 3 months

Rs.24,210/-

Rs.24,840/-

including additional amount of Rs.630/-

Total compensation

Rs.3,07,824/-

Rs.3,96,382/-

including total additional amount of Rs.88,558/-

12) In view of above, as the Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.3,07,824/-, however, as discussed above the appellant is entitled to get additional amount of Rs.88,558/- (Rs.3,96,382/- - Rs.3,07,824/-) with proportionate costs and interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal.

13) Hence, present appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and award dated 28.02.2025 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi), Panchmahals at Godhra, in MAC Petition No.226 of 2020 stands modified to the aforesaid extent. Rest of the judgment and award remains unaltered. The respondent no.3 – Insurance Company shall deposit the said additional amount of Rs.88,558/-along with interest as awarded by the Tribunal, before the Tribunal within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Record and proceedings be remitted back to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.

14) The learned Tribunal is directed to recover or deduct the deficit court fees on enhanced amount and thereafter disburse the amount accordingly.

15) Award to be drawn accordingly.