LexURVIBEN CHIRAGHBAI SHETH versus VIJAYBHAI SHAMBHUBHAI JORANPUTRA .& ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011] 5 S.C.R. 897 URVIBEN CHIRAGHBAI SHETH v. VIJAYBHAI SHAMBHUBHAI JORANPUTRA .& ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 3618 of 2011) .... APRIL 26, 2011 [G.S: SINGHVI AND ASOK.KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.] . . Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - s. 166 - Compensation - Claim 'for enhancemerit - First respondent los( control of the A B . car while driving and dashed the same against a milestone, c resulting in serious injuries to occupants of the car - Appellant, aged 30 years and earning around Rs. 15001- pm suffered disability and rendered bedridden as' a result of the · accident - Claim petitiori"by appellant seeking Rs.c 15 lakhs as compensation - Tribunal computed compensation as Rs. D 6, 07, 0001- with interest at the rate of 9%, with the consent of the parties -·Appeal filed by appellant claiming enhancement lor compensation - Affidavit filed by advocate who appeared ·· before the Tribunal contending that no such settlement was ·· ever entered into by the consent of parties - Dismissal of the E appeal by the High Court discarding the affidavit:.:.. 'on appeal held: High Court took a narrow view of the entire controversy - Tribunal held the amount granted by it is just proper and reasonable and also held that the same is bas.ed on the consent of the parties - High Court being the last court of fact F and law did not examine whether the Tribunal's finding that the compensation granted is proper, just and reasonable in the facts of the case - Tribunal could not accept the represl;Jntation lowering down . the claim on the mere oral statement of counsel - It should have insisted on production G of some material for the same - Also, no leave was obtained by the parties from the Tribunal to enter the said settlement . - In the absence thereof, the High Court erred in discarding . the affidavit filed by the advocate only on the ground that this 897 H 898 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 5 $.C.R. A was filed belatedly before the High Court and is an afterlhought - Stand taken in the affidavit of the advocate appears probable since there is nothing on record to show that the appellant ever (iled any petition or affidavit for settlement before the MACT - Principle of sanctity of recitals a in Courl proceedings is available to a Court of Record and cannot be stretched to the proceedings of a Tribunal - High Court in the process erred by equating the record of proceedings in a Tribunal with proceedings in a courl of record - However, on basis of the materials on record, the matter c should not be remanded back, since the accident took place in 1990 and the appellant has suffered 100% medical disability which is permanent in nature with no sign of recovery - She has two children and her husband expired prior to the incident - Compensation should be assessed so 0 that the interest accruing therefrom would be sufficient for the maintenance of the family of the victim and the concept of compensation is wider than mere damages - Thus, compensation of Rs. 15 lacs with interest at the rate of 8% on the enhanced compensation from the date of filing the claim E petition before MACT till date of realization. Compensation - Assesment of - Held: Compensation should be assessed so that the interest accruing therefrom would be sufficient for the maintenance of the family of the victim - Concept of compensation is wider than mere F damages. The first respondent, while driving the car owned by the second respondent, lost control of the car and dashed the car with full force against a milestone, G resulting in serious injuries to the occupants, appellant and others. The appellant suffered disability and was rendered bedridden. She filed a claim petition before the Tribunal, claiming rupees fifteen lakhs as compensation. At the time of the accident the appellant was 30 years old H URVIBEN CHIRAGHBAI SHETH v. VIJAYBHAI SHAMBHUBHAI 899 JORANPuTRA and she claimed that she was earning Rs.1,50.0/- to A Rs.1,600/w per month, The first respondent-driver, the second respondent~owner of the car and third respondent-insurance company with which the car was insured, were held jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the appellant. The Tribunal awarded B compensation of Rs.6,07,000/- with interest at the rate of 9%. While computing the compensation, the MACT held that the compensation had been computed with the consent of the parties. The appellant filed an appeal before the High Cour
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.