Vipulkumar Popatbhai Parmar vs Vipulkumar Ishwarbhai Patel & Anr

Hasmukh D. Suthar, J

[1.0] Present First Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “MV Act”) is filed by the appellant – original claimant challenging the impugned judgment and award dated 09.10.2024 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Anand (for short “learned Tribunal”) in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.318 of 2018, whereby the learned Tribunal was pleased to partly allow the claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs.3,68,687/- to the appellant – original claimant.

[2.0] The brief facts leading to filing of present appeal is as follows:

[2.1] On 12.06.2018, the appellant – original claimant was riding Motorcycle No.GJ-23-K-912 at moderate speed on the correct side of road and when the claimant reached on the place of accident, at that time, driver of Eeco Car bearing registration No.GJ-01-KS-832 (hereinafter referred to as “offending vehicle”) being driven by opponent No.1 in full speed in rash and negligent manner came on wrong side and dashed with the motorcycle of the claimant thereby causing serious injuries to the appellant – claimant. Therefore, the appellant herein – original claimant filed MACP No.318/2018 seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.

[2.2] After considering the evidence produced and adduced, the learned Tribunal held the driver of offending Eeco Car solely negligent for the accident and was pleased to award Rs.3,68,687/-to the original claimant. Hence, the appellant – original claimant has filed the present First Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

[3.0] Learned advocate Mr. Nishit Bhalodi appearing for the appellant – original claimant has submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed an error in considering monthly income of the deceased at Rs.5000/- and not considering minimum wages of the year 2018 i.e. Rs.8000/- for unskilled person and accordingly, the learned Tribunal has not awarded just and proper compensation. He has further submitted that the learned Tribunal has not even considered 40% escalation towards future prospects and has not awarded just and proper compensation under the head of future loss of income. Hence, he has requested to allow the present appeal.

[4.0] Learned advocate Mr. Vibhuti Nanavaty appearing for the respondent No.2 – insurance company has opposed the present appeal by submitting that the learned Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation which does not call for any interference by this Court. Hence, he has requested to dismiss the first appeal.

[5.0] Present appeal is filed on limited ground of quantum of compensation and therefore, same is considered in narrow compass.

[6.0] Having heard learned advocate for the appellant – original claimant and learned advocate for the respondent No.2 – insurance company and perusing the record, it appears that the learned Tribunal has considered the evidence produced and adduced by both the parties including the affidavit of the claimant (Exh.20) and complaint (Exh.28) and panchnama of scene of accident (Exh.29) and in view of the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bimla Devi vs. H.R.S.T.C. reported in AIR 2009 SC 2819 and Parmeshwari Devi vs. Amir Chand reported in (2011) 11 SCC 635, wherein it is held that it is settled law that negligence is required to be proved in claim petition under section 166 of the MV Act only on the touchstone of the preponderance of probability and not beyond doubt and even as per the complaint, it emerges that the driver of the offending Eeco Car came driving his vehicle in rash and negligent manner with full speed and coming on wrong side hit the motorcycle of the claimant and therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly considered 100% negligence on the part of the offending Eeco Car.

[6.1] So far as argument canvassed by learned advocate for the appellant – original claimant that the learned Tribunal has considered monthly income of claimant at Rs.6000/- and not has considered minimum wages prevailing at the time of accident i.e. in the year 2018. Perusing the evidence it appears that the claimant was unskilled and therefore, considering minimum wages prevailing in the year 2018, the learned Tribunal ought to have considered monthly income of the claimant at Rs.8000/- and as the claimant was aged 20 years at the time of accident, in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Shethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, 40% i.e. Rs.3200/- (40% of Rs.8000/-) and therefore, future monthly income would come to Rs.11,200/-. Further, the parties have mutually agreed to examine permanent disability of the claimant at 25% body as a whole and in this regard joint purshis is produced at Exh.36. Further, as the claimant was aged 20 years, in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in 2009 ACJ 1298, by applying the multiplier of 18, the claimant would be entitled to Rs.6,04,800/- [Rs.2800 (Rs.11,200 x 25%) x 12 x 18) towards future loss of income.

[6.2] So far as actual loss of income is concerned, the learned Tribunal has awarded actual loss of income for one month however, considering monthly income of claimant at Rs.11,200/-, it would be just and proper to award compensation of Rs.11,200/- towards actual loss of income. So far as compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal under the head of medical expenses is concerned, no interference is called for as the learned Tribunal relying on medical bills produced at Exh.35 has rightly awarded Rs.18,687/-towards medical expenditure. So far as compensation under the head of pain, shock and suffering is concerned, considering the fact that claimant sustained 25% permanent disability body as a whole, claimant is entitled to an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards pain, shock and suffering. Further, under the head of special diet, attendant charges and transportation, amount awarded is Rs.10,000/-, which does not call for any interference. Hence, the claimant is now entitled to get the compensation as under:

Heads

Awarded by Tribunal

Reassessed by this Court

Future loss of income

Rs.3,24,000/-

Rs.6,04,800/-

including additional amount of Rs.2,80,800/-

Actual loss of income

Rs.6,000/-

Rs.11,200/-

including additional amount of Rs.5,200/-

Pain, shock and suffering

Rs.10,000/-

Rs.25,000/-

including additional amount of Rs.15,000/-

Medical Expenses

Rs.18,687/-

Rs.18,687/- NIL

Special diet,

attendant charges and transportation

Rs.10,000/-

Rs.10,000/- NIL

Total Compensation

Rs.3,68,687/-

Rs.6,69,687/-

including additional amount of Rs.3,01,000/-

[7.0] It is needless to say that the MV Act is a benevolent legislation which has been framed with the object of providing relief to the victims, or their families and there is no bar that compensation is restricted up to the claim of the claimant and the High Court and Tribunal have to award the compensation upto that extent. In this regard reference is required to be made to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Nagappa Vs Gurudayal Singh and others, reported in (2003) 2 Supreme Court Cases 274, wherein it has been observed that there is no restriction that compensation could be awarded only upto the amount claimed by the claimant in an appropriate case, where from the evidence brought on record if the Tribunal / Court considers that the claimant is entitled to get more compensation than claimed.

[8.0] In wake of aforesaid conspectus, First Appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and award dated 09.10.2024 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Anand in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.318 of 2018 is modified and the amount of compensation is reassessed as Rs.6,69,687/- and the respondent No.2 - insurance Company is directed to deposit the reassessed compensation amount i.e. Rs.6,69,687/- alongwith accrued interest at the rate of 8% per annum within a period of FOUR WEEKS from the date of receipt of this order.

[9.0] The Tribunal shall disburse the entire amount of compensation (lying in the FDR and/or with the Tribunal including the enhanced amount of compensation), with accrued interest thereon, if any, to the claimant, by account payee cheque / NEFT / RTGS, after proper verification and after following due procedure.

[10.0] While making the payment, the Tribunal shall deduct the courts fees, if not paid.

[11.0] Record and proceedings, if any, be sent back to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.