AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.R. Brahmbhatt, J.—Heard Ms. Lopa Bhatt for Mr. V.C. Desai, learned advocate for the appellant and Shri S.B. Parikh, learned advocate for respondent No. 2. None is present for respondent No. 1.
The appellant, guardian of minor Prakash Manibhai Patni has filed this appeal assailing the award dated 20/12/1991 made by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. III (Main) at Ahmedabad in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 50 of 1986, contending that the amount of Rs. 42,000/- awarded was not adequate, so as to compensate the minor against the injury sustained in the accident that had occurred on 27/4/1985.
The facts in brief leading to filing of this appeal deserve to be set out as under:
Minor Prakash, on 27/4/1985 at about 9.30 a.m. had sustained injury on his right leg as a result of an accident by one vehicle bearing registration No. GUD-4162 owned by respondent No. 1 herein. As a result thereof, the victim had to undergo treatment as an indoor patient twice i.e. from 27/4/1985 to 13/5/1985 and again from 9/9/1986 to 29/9/1986. The claim petition came to be filed, claiming compensation of Rs. One lakh, which came to be partly allowed by the Claims Tribunal and a sum of Rs. 42,000/- came to be awarded under the heads mentioned in the award dated 20/12/1991 in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 50 of 1986, which is impugned in the present appeal by the appellant on the ground of inadequacy of the award of compensation.
Ms. Lopa Bhatt, learned advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the Claims Tribunal at the relevant time awarded only Rs. 15,000/- under the head of pain, shock & suffering to the minor, who had received serious injury and for the treatment whereof he had to undergo prolonged medication. She further submitted that the Tribunal erred in not computing the compensation for future economic loss as the disability suffered by the victim was 23.9 %, whereas the computation was made considering it to be of 20% only.
Though served, none appears for respondent No. 1. Shri Parikh, learned advocate who appears for respondent No. 2 submitted that the award being just & proper does not call for interference u/s 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. However, Shri Parikh could not dispute the fact that the disability sustained is not adequately accounted, and he, therefore, submitted that any how, if this Court is of the view that same be taken into consideration in its proper perspective, then also it would have marginal effect of enhancing the sum of Rs. 1874/- only. He further submitted that the minor was said to have been earning income in vegetable vending business. In fact the minor was said to have been attending the school on earlier occasion. In view of these facts & circumstances, this Court may not accept the appeal in its totality and pass appropriate order.
This Court is of the considered view that the submission in respect of computing the amount awarded under the head of future loss of income needs consideration, but that in itself would not make the compensation awarded so great an impact. The disability percentage should also be taken into consideration as the doctor has opined that the disability of the child was of 23.9%, and therefore, the sum of Rs. 14,400/- awarded under the head of future loss will get enhanced by Rs. 2,000/-, making it Rs. 16,400/-.
Looking to the age of the victim when the accident had occurred and the treatment as an indoor patient, amount for pain, shock & suffering also needs to be adequately enhanced and therefore, same is enhanced by way of adding Rs. 5,000/- to the original award of Rs. 15,000/-, making it total Rs. 20,000/-.
This Court is inclined not to enhance any amount under any other heads as the award appears to be otherwise just & proper. Enhancement of aforesaid two heads are required to be ordered in the peculiar facts & circumstances of the present case, wherein the minor had sustained the injury and he was required to be hospitalized for twice on different occasion for a period of more than ten days. Therefore the amount of Rs. 15,000/- award was not adequate & proper, and looking to this peculiar facts & circumstances of the case same is enhanced by Rs. 5,000/- which will make the total amount awarded under the head of pain, shock & suffering to Rs. 20,000/-. The Tribunal has not given any cogent reason for not taking into consideration the exact figure of disability which is said to be of 23.9 % for awarding and computing the compensation under the head of future loss of income. Therefore, Rs. 2000/- is added to the original award of Rs. 14,400/- under the head of future loss of income.
Thus additional amount of Rs. 7,000/- (Rs. 5,000/- for pain, shock & suffering and Rs. 2000/- for future loss of income) be paid to the claimant with interest from the date of filing of the petition with interest as awarded by the Tribunal.
The appeal is partly allowed and is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.