Skip to content


New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Amratlal Nathalal and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectInsurance;Motor Vehicles
CourtGujarat High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in2(1985)ACC174
AppellantNew India Insurance Co. Ltd.
RespondentAmratlal Nathalal and ors.
Excerpt:
- - during this particular period the claimant can be very well assumed to have spent at least rs. the above amount shall be payable by the appellant to the respondent-claimant with (% interest from the date of the application till realisation as well as costs there on for both the courts......by way of the present appeal. the claimant being aggrieved by the meagerness of the amount filed cross objections and claimed additional compensation of rs. 25,000/-. before effective hearing mr. k.j. vyas, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent-claimant reduced the claim by way of cross-objections to rs. 6,000/-.3. on going through the evidence we feel that the only ground on which the appellant-insurance company is challenging the award is that the vehicle was not meant for carrying passengers and yet at the relevant time it was carrying passengers for hire and reward and in that view of the matter the insurance company should have been totally exonerated. however, in view of the decision of the full bench of this court reported at 23(1) glr page-411 the permit for hire.....
Judgment:

D.C. Gheewala, J.

1. The present appeal is directed against the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Narol in claim petition No. 289/78. The respondent No. 1 was injured in a motor accident and had sustained injuries which according to him resulted in permanent partial disability to the extent of 8%. He therefore, filed a claim petition for claiming Rs. 35,000/- by way of compensation. When the accident had taken place the injured-respondent was traveling in truck no. G.T.G. 1588.

2. After appreciating the evidence the learned tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 10,000/- comprising of Rs. 5.000/- by way of pain, shock and suffering and medical expenses and Rs. 5,000/- by way a. lumpsum for future economical loss. Being aggrieved by the said order the Insurance Company i.e. the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. carried the matter before this Court by way of the present appeal. The claimant being aggrieved by the meagerness of the amount filed cross objections and claimed additional compensation of Rs. 25,000/-. Before effective hearing Mr. K.J. Vyas, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent-claimant reduced the claim by way of cross-objections to Rs. 6,000/-.

3. On going through the evidence we feel that the only ground on which the appellant-insurance company is challenging the award is that the vehicle was not meant for carrying passengers and yet at the relevant time it was carrying passengers for hire and reward and in that view of the matter the Insurance Company should have been totally exonerated. However, in view of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court reported at 23(1) GLR page-411 the permit for hire has not been produced nor any evidence has been adduced in this behalf and hence, this contention would be of little avail to the appellant.

4. On going through the award of the learned tribunal we find that if at all the tribunal has erred in the side of regard lines and the compensation awarded appears to be so meagre that it requires on upward revision. The respondent-claimant having sustained two fractures had to undergo medical treatment for a prolonged period should have been awarded at least Rs.7.500/- for pain shock and suffering instead of Rs. 5,000/- which the tribunal has awarded. During this particular period the claimant can be very well assumed to have spent at least Rs. 1,000/- for medical expenses and other sundry items. The learned tribunal has not taken this amount into consideration and the amount of Rs. 5.000/- awarded for pain shock and suffering by the tribunal also included medical expenses. We therefore, feel that Rs. 1,000/- more should be awarded on this particular head alone.

5. For the future economical loss there is evidence that the claimant-respondent was serving in the telephones Department and was not a table worker. Having sustained two fractures he had suffered permanent partial disability to the extent of 8% and his income at the relevant tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 5,000/- by way of lump sum for future economical loss, but we feel that computing at the rate of Rs. 40/- per month on account of the 8% disability which the claimant had suffered it would come to Rs. 480/- per annum and taking into consideration the age of the claimant a 15 years purchase price could have been conveniently awarded or rather should have been awarded. This amount by itself would come to Rs. 7,200/- instead of Rs. 5,000/- which the tribunal has awarded. We, therefore, feel that the cross objections are required to be allowed to the extent indicated above where's the appeal requires to be dismissed for the reasons stated above. The cross objections are accordingly allowed and the total amount claimable by the claimant respondent would be Rs. 7 500/- for pain shock and suffering and Rs. 7,200/- for future economic loss and Rs. 1,000/- fcr medical expends i.e. Rs. 15,700/- in to. The said figures stall be substituted for the figure of Rs. 10,000/- occurring in the award of the tribunal. The above amount shall be payable by the appellant to the respondent-claimant with (% interest from the date of the application till realisation as well as costs there on for both the courts.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //