Authority under MV Act
Rekha.....
(Querist) 13 October 2008
This query is : Resolved
HellO!
Pl. would u furnish me the soft copy of the following authority
AIR 1996 pgno130 (Gujarat)
KANTIBHAI VALABHAI PATEL V/S PRAVIN NATHUBHAI
H. S. Thukral
(Expert) 13 October 2008
[GUJARAT HIGH COURT]
AHMEDABAD
Kantibhai Valabhai Patel and Others
v
Minor Pravin Nathubhai
R. A. MEHTA, S. K. KESHOTE & JJ
19 Jun 1995
BENCH
R. A. MEHTA, S. K. KESHOTE & JJ
COMPARATIVE CITATIONS
1996 AIR(Guj) 130, 1995 INDLAW GUJ 236
ACTS REFERRED
Motor Vehicles Act 1939[s. 92B]
CASE NO
First Appeal No. 902 of 1990.
LAWYERS
R. H. Mehta, M. R. Shah
.JUDGMENT TEXT
The Judgment was delivered by :
:- This appeal by the original opponents is directed against the award of Rs 1, 99, 000 / - with proportionate cost and 12% interest. The appeal is restricted to Rs. 1, 00, 000 /-. The break up of the award is as follows :
Rs. 50, 000/ - For pain, shock and sufferings.
Rs. 700/- For conveyance charges from Jhalod to Godhra Civil Hospital.
Rs. 3, 000/- For lodging, nursing and medicine charges in Godhra Hospital during 70 days.
Rs. 900/- For transport charges for follow up treatment.
Rs. 10, 000/- For artificial limb.
Rs. 1, 34, 400/- For loss of future economic loss.
Rs. 1, 99, 000 /- plus costs and 12% interest.
As far as the last figure of loss of future economic loss is concerned, the Tribunal in para. 21 of its judgment has assessed the future loss of income at Rs, 1000 / - per month, and considering the disability at 70% and applying the multiplier of 16 the Tribunal has assessed the pecuniary loss at Rs. 1, 34, 400/ -.
2. On behalf of the appellants it is submitted that the claimant is aged seven years and his future income would have started only at the age of 18 years and till that date, on the basis of Rs. 1000/- per month to take the current income of a minor of seven years age will not be the correct approach. There is considerable force in the argument advanced on behalf of the appellants. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case it appears just and proper to direct that under the head of future economic loss the claimant be awarded a sum of Rs. 80, 000/- instead of Rs, 1, 34, 000/-. Thus there would be deduction of Rs. 54, 000/- in the award, -with proportionate costs and interest and that amount will have to be returned to the appellant insurance-company.
3. In the result the appeal is partly allowed and the award of the Tribunal is modified, and the award shall be for the sum of Rupees 1, 44, 600/- with proportionate costs and 12% interest from the date of application till the date of realisation. The excess amount deposited by the insurance company shall be refunded to it. As regards cost of the appeal, there shall be no costs and the parties shall bear their own costs.
Appeal partly allowed.
RAKHI BUDHIRAJA ADVOCATE
(Expert) 14 October 2008
JUDGMENT TEXT
The Judgment was delivered by :
:- This appeal by the original opponents is directed against the award of Rs 1, 99, 000 / - with proportionate cost and 12% interest. The appeal is restricted to Rs. 1, 00, 000 /-. The break up of the award is as follows :
Rs. 50, 000/ - For pain, shock and sufferings.
Rs. 700/- For conveyance charges from Jhalod to Godhra Civil Hospital.
Rs. 3, 000/- For lodging, nursing and medicine charges in Godhra Hospital during 70 days.
Rs. 900/- For transport charges for follow up treatment.
Rs. 10, 000/- For artificial limb.
Rs. 1, 34, 400/- For loss of future economic loss.
Rs. 1, 99, 000 /- plus costs and 12% interest.
As far as the last figure of loss of future economic loss is concerned, the Tribunal in para. 21 of its judgment has assessed the future loss of income at Rs, 1000 / - per month, and considering the disability at 70% and applying the multiplier of 16 the Tribunal has assessed the pecuniary loss at Rs. 1, 34, 400/ -.
2. On behalf of the appellants it is submitted that the claimant is aged seven years and his future income would have started only at the age of 18 years and till that date, on the basis of Rs. 1000/- per month to take the current income of a minor of seven years age will not be the correct approach. There is considerable force in the argument advanced on behalf of the appellants. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case it appears just and proper to direct that under the head of future economic loss the claimant be awarded a sum of Rs. 80, 000/- instead of Rs, 1, 34, 000/-. Thus there would be deduction of Rs. 54, 000/- in the award, -with proportionate costs and interest and that amount will have to be returned to the appellant insurance-company.
3. In the result the appeal is partly allowed and the award of the Tribunal is modified, and the award shall be for the sum of Rupees 1, 44, 600/- with proportionate costs and 12% interest from the date of application till the date of realisation. The excess amount deposited by the insurance company shall be refunded to it. As regards cost of the appeal, there shall be no costs and the parties shall bear their own costs.
Appeal partly allowed.
