NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. DEVRAJ HARIBHAI GADHVI
LAWS(GJH)-2008-7-253
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on July 25,2008

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Appellant
VERSUS
DEVRAJ HARIBHAI GADHVI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) HEARD learned advocate Mr. Hasmukh Thakkar appearing on behalf of appellant " New India Assurance Company Limited.
(2.) THE appellant has challenged the award passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux. I), Fast Track Court No. 1, Kachchh at Bhuj in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 473 of 2004 dated 30th November 2007. The Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 3,40,000/- in favour of claimants with 9% interest. The claimants have filed an application for compensation under the provisions of Section 163a of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs. 6,57,884/ -.
(3.) LEARNED advocate Mr. Thakkar raised contention before this Court that admittedly monthly salary of respondent No. 1 claimant was Rs. 6,314/-, therefore, it comes to more than Rs. 40,000/- per annum (Rs. 75,768/- ). Therefore, application made under Section 163a of the Motor Vehicles Act is not maintainable and Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide it. He also submitted that injuries suffered by respondent No. 1 claimant was not on account of any vehicular accident, but, it was an intentional act of driver of the vehicle which is reflected in the FIR which was filed under Section 302, 307, 332, 333 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code before Bhachau Police Station and another FIR was filed under Section 307, 427 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code before Rahpar Police Station. Therefore, Claims before Tribunal is not maintainable. He further submitted that in complaint filed by Shri D. R. Agravat and his police party, name of claimant is not mentioned as to injuries received by him. Therefore, injuries received by respondent No. 1 claimant is not on account of accident but a result of intentional act of driver of the vehicle. He also submitted that there is no loss of income as service of the respondent claimant was remained continue and multiplier should not have to give beyond five and there is no medical certificate produced by the claimant for permanent partial disablement determining 50% disability. The Tribunal has committed an error in awarding medical expenses in favour of claimant. He further submitted that permission under Section 170 of the Act has been granted by the Tribunal. Except that, no other contention was raised by learned advocate Mr. Thakkar in the present appeal before this Court.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.