DINESHBHAI PRABHUDAS SONI vs. KANTILAL BHANVARLAL MARVADI (DELETED AS PER ORDER DATED 21/12/2022)

PDF · subscribers
FA/1630/2008HC GujaratGJHC24039495200808 September 2023Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal requires enhancement under the heads of future economic loss and medical expenses. Regarding future economic loss, the Tribunal erred by not considering prospective income, which is a crucial aspect of just compensation as per the principles laid down in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. The Court modified the award by calculating future economic loss based on a monthly income of Rs. 3,000/- plus a prospective addition of Rs. 1,200/-, considering the 15% disablement, resulting in an enhanced amount of Rs. 32,400/- under this head. For medical expenses, the Tribunal's award of Rs. 15,000/- was deemed meager given the actual bills submitted. The Court enhanced the medical expenses to Rs. 1,57,000/-. The compensation under other heads remained unaltered. The total enhanced amount payable to the appellant is Rs. 1,89,400/-, carrying interest at 6%.

What were the facts?

The appellant, Dinesh Soni, sustained vehicular accidental injuries on July 3, 2000, when his scooter was hit by a truck. He suffered head and leg injuries, was hospitalized for approximately a month, and incurred permanent partial disablement. At the time of the accident, he was a goldsmith earning an average monthly income of Rs. 3,500/-. He filed a claim petition before the Ahmedabad Tribunal (MACP No. 653/2000). The Tribunal, by judgment and award dated April 23, 2007, partly allowed the petition and awarded Rs. 1,25,000/- under various heads. The claimant, dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, filed the present appeal seeking enhancement.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal requires enhancement, specifically concerning future economic loss and medical expenses. Assessee's Contentions: - The Tribunal failed to consider prospective income while determining future economic loss. - The Tribunal awarded only Rs. 15,000/- for medical expenses, despite the claimant submitting bills totaling Rs. 1,72,000/-. - The Tribunal considered the monthly income as Rs. 3,000/- instead of Rs. 3,500/- as evidenced by income tax returns, and did not add any prospective amount. - The Tribunal's reasoning for not relying on medical bills, stating treatment could have been taken in Ahmedabad, was flawed. Revenue's Contentions: - The Tribunal's findings were based on sufficient reasons and did not require interference. - The award was supported by the facts and evidence on record and the principles of just compensation.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

C/FA/1630/2008 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1630 of 2008 ========================================================== DINESHBHAI PRABHUDAS SONI Versus KANTILAL BHANVARLAL MARVADI (DELETED AS PER ORDER DATED 21/12/2022) & 2 other(s) ========================================================== Appearance: MR PUNIT B JUNEJA(3972) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 DELETED for the Defendant(s) No. 1 MASUMI V NANAVATY(9321) for the Defendant(s) No. 3 MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Defendant(s) No. 3 SERVED BY AFFIX. (R) for the Defendant(s) No. 2 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA

Date : 08/09/2023

ORAL ORDER 1. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the original injured claimant has preferred present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. The appellant – Dinesh Soni, sustained vehicular accidental injury on 03.07.2000, allegedly caused by offending truck which had given a dash to the scooter of the appellant. He sustained injuries over his head and left leg and was sustained for about month in V.S. Hospital at Ahmedabad and on account of said injuries, which resulted into permanent partial disablement. The appellant, at relevant time was by profession was doing work of Goldsmith and his average monthly income was Page 1 of 4

C/FA/1630/2008 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2023 Rs.3,500/-. In these background facts, he had filed a claim petition before the Ahmedabad Tribunal. The learned tribunal (MACP No.653/2000), vide its judgment and award dated 23.04.2007 by partly allowing the petition, awarded Rs.1,25,000/- under the various heads. The appellant, being dissatisfied with the quantum of amount, has preferred the present appeal on the ground that, the learned tribunal did not have consider the prospective income while determining the amount under future economy loss and though the expenses towards medicines spent Rs.1,25,000/-, the tribunal has considered only Rs.15,000/- under medical expenses.

3.

This Court has heard learned counsel Mr. Punit Juneja and Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati for the respective parties. 4. Mr. Juneja, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that, the award passed is against the facts and evidence on record and principles of just compensation laid down by the Apex Court in its various judgments and therefore, case is made out for enhancement of compensation. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati, learned counsel supported the findings recorded by the tribunal and contended that, the tribunal while awarding the amount under various heads, assigned sufficient reasons which does not require any interference. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the material placed on record, the issue Page 2 of 4

C/FA/1630/2008 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2023 arise for consideration of this Court is whether the amount so awarded needs any enhancement or not? 7. It is the contention of the appellant that, the tribunal did not have consider the profession of the appellant and material evidence in the form of income tax returns which is evident of the fact that, the appellant was earning Rs.3,500/- per month and despite of this, the tribunal by considering the income of Rs.3,000/- per month without adding any prospective amount, has determined the future economic loss which requires modification of the amount. He further submitted that, the bills of treatment to the tune of Rs.1,72,000/- were being submitted before the tribunal and same was not relied on the reasons that, the appellant could have taken treatment at Ahmedabad. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the findings recorded by the tribunal, this Court is of the view that, while determining the monthly amount under the head of future economic loss, the tribunal did not consider the prospective income which is against the concept of just compensation. Thus, therefore, considering the year of accident and the avocation, the monthly income of Rs.3,000/- does not require any modification, however, prospective income as per the principle laid down by the Constitutional Bench in case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. reported in 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC) shall be taken into consideration and to that extent, the amount is Page 3 of 4

C/FA/1630/2008 ORDER DATED: 08/09/2023 modified. The following amount is payable to the appellant under the head of future economic loss: Rs.4200 (Rs.3000+Rs.1200) X 15% disablement= monthly loss Rs.630 yearly Rs.7560 X 15 = 1,13,400/-. The enhanced amount under this head would come to Rs.32,400/- 9. The learned tribunal despite production of actual medical expenses bills, awarded meager amount of Rs.15,000/- and therefore, the amount under the head of medical expenses needs to be reviewed and accordingly, the enhanced amount payable under the head of medical expenses is Rs.1,57,000/-. 10. Except the above modification, the compensation awarded by the Claim Tribunal under other heads remain unaltered. 11. Consequently, the present appeal is partly allowed. The appellant is entitled to the enhanced amount of Rs.1,89,400/-. The enhanced amount shall carry the interest @ 6%. The tribunal shall disburse the entire amount to the claimant. The decree be drawn accordingly. (ILESH J. VORA,J) TAUSIF SAIYED Page 4 of 4

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →