AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Exh. No.,Particulars
56,Certified copy of the complaint.
57,Certified copy of the panchnama.
58,RC Book of offending vehicles
59,Xerox copy of opponent No.1 licence
60,Xerox copy of insurance policy.
61,Injury certificate
62,Prescription
63,Medical Bill
64,Green Cross Blood Bank's cash receipt.
65,Cash Receipt
66Â71,Prescriptions and cash memos
72,Prescription
73,Receipt
74,Photo Bill
75,Consultation fee Receipt
76,XÂray receipt
77,Letter
78,Cash Memo of Scooter damage
79Â80,Certificates
47,Memorandum of marriage
48,Gujarat University Certificate
49,School leaving certificate
50,Gujarat Medical Council's certificate
51,NIFL Municipal Medical College Certificate
52,Shahpur Mill Compound Certificate
53,Birth date certificate
54,Dr. Hansal Bachech certificate
55,Degree Certificate
93,Disability certificate
88,Income Tax returns
89,Degree Certificate
90,Clinic Receipt
91,Disability certificate
84,Disability certificate.
7.0. Upon considering the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties as well as original Record and Proceeding of the case,
as well as paper book, it is quite clear that deposition of the appellant at Exh. 46, there is nothing on record to show that income of deceased was in",
any manner more than 2600/Â per month, which the appellant earned as stipend being intern. In absence of any income and even considering the",
version of the appellant herself who was 26 years old on the date of accident, the Tribunal has correctly assessed income of the appellant at",
Rs.3000/Â per month.,
7.1. Upon perusal of the disability certificate at Exh.91, which is issued by the Dr. N.M. Shah, it shows that as per the opinion of the Doctor who was",
an expert, the appellant had acquired 15% permanent disability of the body as a whole. It is no doubt true that Doctor is not examined, however",
considering the nature of injuries, permanent disability of the body as a whole can be assessed at 15% instead of 10% as considered by the Tribunal",
7.2. Upon reÂappreciation of evidence on record, the appellant had taken exhaustive treatment for at least for two months and there is evidence on",
record to show that for considerable time, the appellant could not resume her work. Upon reÂappreciation of the evidence on record, we come to the",
conclusion that the appellant suffered actual loss of income for at least three months. The certificate at Exh.61 issued by the Dr. Parikh shows that,
the appellant had to take treatment for 12 weeks i.e. three months and hence, the appellant would be entitled to actual loss of income for three months",
instead of two months. Similarly, considering the agony, exhaustive treatment, which the appellant was required to take, the agony through which the",
appellant has passed, the appellant would be entitled to more amount as compensation under the head of pain, shock and suffering as well as special",
diet and attendant charges than what is awarded by the Tribunal. Upon re appreciation of evidence on record and in facts of this case, the appellant",
would be entitled to Rs.20,000/Â as compensation under the head of pain, shock and suffering and Rs.15000/Â as compensation under the head of",
Special Diet and Attendant charges etc.,
7.3. As far as the medical reimbursement is concerned, the Tribunal has rightly considered the evidence on record and has granted Rs.18676/Â, which",
does not require any modification,
8.0. Upon reÂappreciation of evidence on record, more particularly, FIR and Panchnama of the scene of occurrence and the manner in which the",
accident has occurred, the Tribunal has committed an error in attributing 25% negligence to the appellant. The minibus was being driven on wrong side",
and at an excessive speed. The respondent Insurance Company has not examined the driver of the minibus and upon reÂappreciation of the evidence,",
it cannot be said that the accident occurred also because of negligence on the part of the appellant. The FIR at Exh.56 and Panchnama at Exh.57,
clearly indicates that scooter of the appellant was dragged for 30 to 40 ft. The Tribunal has therefore, committed an error in coming to the conclusion",
that both the drivers i.e. appellant is negligent to the extent of 25% and the driver of the minibus was negligent to the extent of 75%. The evidence,
clearly shows that accident occurred only because of negligence on the part of the driver of minibus and driver of the minibus was thus solely,
negligent.,
8.1. Having come to the aforesaid conclusion, therefore, the appellant would be entitled to compensation under the head of future loss of income as",
under:,
“Rs. 3000/ pm (income) + (15% disability ) 450 x 12 x 17 (multiplier) 91,800/ + Rs. 9000/ (actual loss of income of three months) +",
Rs.20,000/ (Pain, Shock and Suffering) + Rs.18676/ (medical expenses) + Rs.15,000/ (Special diet and attendant charges) = 1,54,476/Ââ€",
8.2. As the Tribunal has granted Rs. 81,357/Â, the appellant would be entitled to additional compensation of Rs. 73,119/Â with 7.5% from the date of",
filing of the petition till its realization. The respondent no.3Â Insurance Company shall deposit additional amount as awarded by this Court with the,
Tribunal within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the present order.,
9.0. The appeal is thus, partly allowed and the impugned judgment and award stands modified to the aforesaid extent. However, there shall be no",
order as to cost. The record and proceeding be transmitted back to the learned Tribunal forthwith.,