UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. MUNNIBEN
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD
MUNNIBEN RAMAVTAR JAHULAL RAJPUT NAGJIBHAI
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THE appellant has, under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ("the Act", for short), challenged the award dated 22. 3. 2007 of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vadodara in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 333 of 2000 only to the extent of the liability of Rs. 75,000/- as the Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs. 4,75,000/- against the claim of Rs. 4,00,000/ -. It was argued by learned counsel Mr. Palak Thakkar, appearing with learned counsel Mr. Hasmukh Thakkar, that the Tribunal ought not to have increased the amount of compensation even beyond the amount claimed in the original petition and ought to have at least insisted upon amendment of the claim petition in view of judgment of the Supreme Court in Nagappa v. Gurdayal Singh and Others [2002 AIR SCW 5348]. It was, however, pointed out by learned counsel Mr. Modi, appearing for the original claimant, that not only that judgment in Nagappa (supra) was considered by the Tribunal, but Division Bench of this Court in Manohar Madhukar Tambe v. Bhagubhai Liladhar and Ors. [2005 (3) GLH 651] awarded higher amount of compensation than the amount claimed after referring to and relying upon the Apex Court's decision in Nagappa (supra ). Therefore, in short, when there was evidence for enhancement of the amount of compensation, such compensation could be awarded even at the appellate stage, according to the said judgment of this Court. It was also sought to be argued that oral evidence was not sufficient to support the presumption of monthly income of Rs. 2,500/- of the deceased. That argument has to be stated only to be rejected in view of the unshaken depositions of two witnesses to the effect that the deceased was being paid Rs. 100/- per day.
(2.) IN view of the above position of law, the sole legal contention for the appellant could not be sustained and the appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. Civil Application does not survive. Hence, it is disposed as rejected and Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.