AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Jayant Patel, J.—The present appeal arises against the judgment award dated April 30, 2010 passed by the Tribunal in MACP No. 27 of 1991, whereby the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.10,31,050/- with the interest at the rate of 9% p.a., up to 2000 and from January 2001, the interest is awarded at Rs.7.5% p.a.
The short facts of the case appear to be that the Appellant, when was going on 5.7.1990 in his Maruti Car bearing Registration No. GJ-17-8889 towards his factory at Halol, one Truck bearing Registration No. GQB-7071 dashed with the Maruti Car and the Appellant sustained injury. The claim petition was filed for the compensation of Rs.70,00,000/-. The Tribunal after considering the matter ultimately has awarded compensation as observed earlier. Under these circumstances, the present appeal before this Court.
We have heard Mr. Hakim, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant and Mr. Rajni Mehta, learned Counsel appearing upon the advance copy. We have considered the reasons recorded by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment and also copy of the deposition of the claimant, which has been made available by the learned Counsel during the course of the hearing for supporting the appeal.
The contention raised on behalf of the Appellant by Mr. Hakim, learned Counsel is that on account of the accident, the Company of the claimant/Appellant herein sustained business loss on account of the cancellation of the orders and the said aspect has not been taken into consideration appropriately by the Tribunal. It was submitted that in the Company, the other Director, was his mother, who was sleeping Director and the Company was being looked after by the Appellant only. If the aforesaid loss is taken into consideration, the compensation shall be on a higher side in comparison to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and, therefore, this appeal.
The examination of the said contention shows that it is not the business loss to be considered for the purpose of awarding compensation, but the actual damages caused to the person is to be considered for the purpose of compensation. The Company in the eye of law is a different entity than the claimant. Further, the disabilities assessed by the Tribunal is 12.5%. If the quantum is to be considered, so as to meet with the just compensation, the Tribunal in the discussion at paragraph 13 of the judgment and award has considered the income shown by the claimant in the Income Tax Return as well as the income shown by the Company to the extent of the share of the claimant at 52%. Thereafter, the Tribunal has arrived at yearly income at Rs.4,58,843/- and the monthly income at Rs.38,240/-. For the period of 40 days full compensation has been given plus on the aspect of disabilities, the Tribunal has assessed compensation at Rs.57,355/- per year and the multiplier of 15 has been applied and the compensation is assessed at Rs.8,60,330 plus the amount towards pain, shock and suffering, transportation, special diets etc.
Considering the facts and circumstances, it appears to us that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just compensation.
In view of the above, the appeal is meritless and hence, dismissed.