LexMITHUSINH PANNASINH CHAUHAN versus GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 10 S.C.R. 39 MITHUSINH PANNASINH CHAUHAN V. GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION &ANR. (Civil Appeal Nos.7201-7202.of 2015) SEPTEMBER 18,2015 [J. CHELAMESWAR AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.] A B ·c Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: s. 166 - Compensation - Claimant-appellant met with an accident- Sustained serious head injury and lost his memory - He could neither speak nor move properly due to injuries sustained in the accident -At the time of accident, he was aged 35 years and working D as a constable in SRP - His earning was Rs. 1400 P. M - MACT held that claimant had suffered 50% disability and accordingly awarded him a total sum of Rs. 2. 19 lacs as compensation - Corporation and claimant both appealed- High Court partly allowed appeal of Corporation and held E that the claimant is entitled to Rs. 1. 15 lacs towards future Joss of income instead of Rs.1.80 lacs awarded by MACT and directed the claimant to refund the excess amount of Rs. 64,800 - Claimant's appeal for enhancement of compensation was dismissed- On appeal, held: Keeping in F view the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, resultant permanent disabilities caused to him due to such injuries couple~ with the amount spent by him in receiving medical treatment, loosing the permanent job due to injuries sustained by him, future Joss of income caused as a result of G the injuries and lastly the continuous mental pain and agony suffered by him, a sum of Rs.4 lacs claimed by way of compensation was just and reasonable - In a case of this nature, the injuries sustained by the claimant were more H 39 40 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 10 S.C.R. A painful because he would have to live his remaining life with such disabilities, which he did not have before a~cident - This undoubtedly would deprive him to live his norma/life - Courts below failed to take note of this material fact while determining the compensation - Impugned order modified B and claimant awarded Rs. 4 lacs. Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. In a case where the appellant has proved c that he has lost his speaking power as also lost his memory retention power due to causing of head injury and further he is not able to move freely at the age of 35 years and lastly due to these injuries, he has also lost his job, there is no reason how the MACT and the High o Court could come to a conclusion that a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- claimed by the appellant was on a higher side and thus reduce it to Rs.1 ,54,200/-. Keeping in view of the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant, resultant permanent disabilities caused to him to the E extent of 50% or 30% due to such injuries which are held proved by the appellant coupled with the amount spent by him in receiving medical treatment also duly held proved by him, loosing the permanent job due to injuries sustained by him, future loss of income caused as a F result of the injuries and lastly the continuous mental pain and agony suffered by him, a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- claimed by the appellant by way of compensation is just and reasonable. In a case of this nature, the injuries sustained by the claimant-appellant herein are more G painful because he has to live his remaining life with such disabilities, which he did not have before accident. This undoubtedly deprives him to live his normal life. The Courts below failed to take note of this material fact while H determining the compensation, which calls for MITHUSINH PANNASINH CHAUHAN v. GUJARAT STATE 41 ROAD TRANSPORT CORP. interference by this Court. [Paras 18 to 20] [45-H; 46-A- A F] CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 7201 -7202 of2015 B From the Judgment and Order dated 14.03.2012 of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in First Appeal Nos. 1536 and 1819 of2001. Nikhil Goel, Naveen Goel, Marsook Bafaki for the Appellant. C R. P. Bhatt, Chirag M. Shroff, Swati Vaibhav for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. Delay condoned. Leave granted. D 2. These appeals are directed against the common final judgment and order dated 14.03.2012 passed by the High E Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in First Appeal No. 1536.of 2001 and First Appeal No. 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 F Accident Claim Petition No. 1071 of 1987. 3. By impugned judgmen
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.