Bhagwandas Karsandas Patel vs Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation and 1 Another

Ravi R. Tripathi, J.—The present First Appeal is filed by appellant-Bhagwandas Karsandas Patel, who is the original claimant in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 496 of 1981, which was decided by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Ahmedabad (Rural) at Narol (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"). The application was partly allowed and the opponents were directed to pay Rs. 40,925/- with proportionate cost and interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application till payment. The Tribunal was also pleased to order that if the opponents fail to deposit the aforesaid amount within three months, the interest shall be calculated at the rate of 12% per annum instead of 6% per annum. The present appeal is filed to claim an additional amount of Rs. 84,075/- while the First Appeal is valued at Rs. 1,25,000/- for jurisdiction. The matter was notified before this Court on 28.06.2010. Learned advocate Mr. Dalal was not present. The matter was then adjourned to the following dates.

Date of listing Adjourned to 28.06.2010 05.07.2010 05.07.2010 13.07.2010 13.07.2010 16.07.2010 16.07.2010 22.07.2010 22.07.2010 28.07.2010 Despite the above said adjournments, learned advocate Mr. K.F. Dalal for the appellant has not remained present before the Court to argue the First Appeal. Though served, the respondent-GSRTC has not filed its appearance.

Taking into consideration the fact that the First Appeal is filed in the year 1984; by now it is more than a quarter century old, the Court deemed fit to peruse the Record & Proceedings which is received along with the judgement and award and dispose of the First Appeal on merits.

The facts giving rise to the present First Appeal as set out in para 2 of the judgement and award passed by the Tribunal are as under:

On 30.3.81 the applicant was on the truck bearing registration No. GTZ 8843. One Rajnikant Ramjibhai was the driver of the said truck. The applicant and the said driver of the truck had gone to Vadagam for transporting grit. When they came near village Sonada the driver detected some defect in the truck and some unusual noise was detected in the running of truck. Therefore, he took the truck on the extreme left hand side of the road and parked in such manner that more portion of the truck would remain on the katcha shoulder of the highway and only some portion of it would remain on the highway. According to the applicant, the driver of the truck had kept the tail lamp on and the driver was about to find out some stones to put them around the truck in order to make a cordon and the applicant, who was knowing the work of mechanic, went below the truck. He found that one of the joints by which the propeller shaft gets motion was broken and he was about to take out the same and all of a sudden the truck received a severe jolt as a result of which it proceeded in the direction which it was facing fro about 50'' to 60'' and thereafter, it stopped after dashing against a tree. The applicant, in order to save himself from being crushed under the ruck made an attempt to come out but the rear wheel of the truck caused injury to him on his knees and on the right ulna. The truck received jolt and motion all of a sudden because according to the applicant, the ST bus No. GRT 7533 owned by opponent No. 1 and driven by its driver deleted opponent No. 2 dashed against the stationary truck that the said ST bus was driven at the time of the accident very rashly and negligently and the driver of the ST bus has not blown horn. The applicant, who was admitted in the Shardaben Hospital, Ahmedabad was treated as in-door patient for 14 days and thereafter, he consulted private orthopedic surgeon. A nail had to be inserted in the ulna shaft and it is still there as it is not removed from right arm. According to the applicant, that gives him pain while working and now he is not in a position to have firm grip with his right arm and he has therefore, claimed Rs. 1,25,000/- by way of compensation.

The Tribunal has noted the contentions raised by the GSRTC in para 2 of the judgment. Issues are raised in para 3. Issue No. 1 is discussed in paras 5, 6 and 7. Issue No. 2 is discussed in paras 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14. The Tribunal has discussed the aspect of economic loss in paras, 15, 16, 17, 19, and 21. In para 21, the Tribunal has discussed about the damage caused to the truck.

The question for consideration of this Court is about the quantum, i.e. issue No. 2 in the judgement and award. On perusal of the award, it is noticed that in paras 9, 10 and 11 the Tribunal has considered the question of medical treatment, transportation, special diet and cost towards attendant charges. So far as pain, shock and suffering and loss of amenities and enjoyment of life is concerned, the same is considered by the Tribunal in para 12. Finally the Tribunal has recorded in para 13 as under:

Thus, from the above discussion, one thing is certain that the applicant will have to bear the serious after-effects of the accidental injuries. The applicant would not be in a position to lift heavy weight with his right hand nor would he in a position to drive the heavy vehicle comfortably. Further as deposed to by Dr. Arvind M. Shah, the applicant will have to undergo yet another operation for the removal of the plate inserted into his right hand. Thus, the applicant was aged about 19 years at the time of the accident and he will have to learn to live with this disability for thrust of his life, which having regard to the age of the applicant would not be less than four decades.

So far as the amount of award under pain, shock and suffering and loss of amenities and enjoyment of life is concerned the Tribunal has relied upon a decision in the matter of Chaturji Amaraji and Ors. v. Ahmed Rahim Bux and Ors. reported in (1978) 19 GLR 850, in which case there was loss of right fore arm from elbow joint. The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 15,000/- which cannot be said to be on lower side. The amount awarded is reasonable.

So far as economic loss is concerned, the Tribunal has considered the evidence led before it in all minute details and has then decided the amount which can be awarded by way of economic loss to the claimants. The Tribunal has undertaken the desired exercise in para 18. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that this First Appeal has no merits. Hence it is dismissed.