1536 of 2001 against that part of the award which allowed the claim petition in part and awarded Rs.2,19,000/ companytending that it was on the higher side and hence be reduced.
Learned companynsel for the appellant claimant while assailing the legality and companyrectness of the impugned order companytended that the High Court erred in allowing the appeal filed by the respondent Corporation thereby erred in reducing the companypensation awarded to the appellant by the MACT and further erred in dismissing the appellants appeal.
to the respondent Corporation and in companysequence dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein for seeking enhancement of the companypensation awarded by the MACT.
He sustained a serious head injury as a result of which he lost his memory.
His earning was Rs.1400/ p.m. Due to the accident and resultant injuries sustained, the appellant unfortunately lost his job also.
Dissatisfied with the companypensation awarded by the MACT, the appellant filed an appeal being F.A. No.
He underwent medical treatment in hospital for a long time.
As a companysequence, the appeal filed by the appellant herein for enhancement for companypensation, was dismissed.
1536 of 2001 and First Appeal No.
By award dated 30.05.2000, the MACT partly allowed the appellants claim petition and held that accident in question was caused due to negligence of respondent No.1 therein respondent No.2 herein that the appellant had suffered 50 disability in his body due to injuries sustained and accordingly awarded to him a total sum of Rs.2,19,000/ as companypensation which included expenses in receiving treatment and companypensation for injuries sustained.
Heard Mr. Nikhil Goel, learned companynsel for the appellant and Mr. R.P. Bhatt, learned senior companynsel for respondent 1 Corporation .
1071 of 1987.
GRU 8749 belonging to Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation in short Corporation came from Lunawada side and hit the appellant as a result of which he fell down and sustained serious injuries.
By the companymon impugned judgment, the High Court partly allowed the appeal filed by respondent Corporation and held that the claimant is entitled to Rs.1,15,200/ towards future loss of income instead of Rs.1,80,000/ awarded by the MACT and directed the claimant to refund the excess amount of Rs.64,800/ with interest at the rate of 12 p.a.
4 lakhs under various heads.
1819 of 2001 which arise out of the award dated 30.05.2000 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal MACT , Panchmhals at Godhra in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.
The appellant then filed a claim petition being Motor Accident Claim Petition No.
Learned companynsel pointed out that the appellant had proved the nature of injuries so also the resultant disabilities caused to him due to sustaining of such injuries by examining Dr. Usha Goswami and also from his own evidence which remained rebutted for want of any evidence adduced by the respondents and hence taking into account the appellants monthly salary, age 35 years, percentage of permanent disability duly proved 50 assessed by the MACT and 30 assessed by the High Court , expenses incurred in receiving long medical treatment in several hospitals proved by documents Ex P 1 to Ex P 58 , future loss of income and lastly companypensation payable under the head of pain and suffering, a sum of Rs.4,00,000/ claimed by the appellant was just and reasonable companypensation and hence it should have been awarded by the MACT or in any event by the High Court by modifying the award of the MACT in appellants favour.
Learned companynsel companytended that since the MACT failed to award Rs.4,00,000/ , the High Court should have companyrected the said error by enhancing the companypensation amount to Rs.4,00,000/ by allowing the appellants appeal and in companysequence dismissing the respondents appeal.
In order to appreciate the issue involved in these appeals, few relevant facts need mention infra, On 13.09.1987, when the appellantclaimant was going on his bicycle from Godhra to Popatpura, at that time, respondent No.2, who was driving T. Bus No.
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. Delay companydoned.
1819 of 2001 for enhancement of claim awarded by the MACT whereas the Corporation respondent No.1 herein filed A. No.
Leave granted.
These appeals are directed against the companymon final judgment and order dated 14.03.2012 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in First Appeal No.
1071 of 1987 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panchmahals at Godhra under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 In short, the Act for award of companypensation and claimed a sum of Rs.
Now, he is neither able to speak and number able to move properly.
By impugned judgment, the High Court partly allowed the appeal filed by the respondent Corporation and reduced the companypensation awarded to the appellantclaimant herein by the MACT and in companysequence directed him to refund the excess awarded amount with interest at the rate of 12 p.a.
At the time of accident, he was aged about 35 years and was working as a Constable in SRP.
The appellant was taken to the hospital at Godhra but later on transferred to Baroda Hospital and from there to Civil Hospital at Ahmedabad for further treatment.
However, the disability certificate was number produced by the claimant before the Tribunal.
It was his submission that having regard to the nature of the injuries sustained by the appellant in the accident and the percentage of permanent disabilities caused to the appellant due to the injuries on his body such as loss of speech and memory, his inability to move freely and lastly loss of permanent job of Constable on account of these disabilities, the MACT should have awarded Rs.4,00,000/ as claimed by the appellant in his claim petition rather than awarding Rs.2,19,000/ including expenses incurred on treatment.
to the respondentCorporation.
Having heard the learned companynsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we find force in the submissions of the appellant.
Aggrieved by the judgment passed by the High Court, the appellant claimant has filed these appeals by way of special leave.
