text stringclasses 9
values | source stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|
Bharatbhai Babubhai Rathod vs Ranjitsinh M. Gohil on 13 January, 2022 C/FA/1170/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/01/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1170 of 2008 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT Sd/-========================================================== 1 W... | Bharatbhai_Babubhai_Rathod_vs_Ranjitsinh_M_Gohil_on_13_January_2022.PDF |
learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux. ), Bhavnagar in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 555 of 1995 dated 17. 08. 2007, by C/FA/1170/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/01/2022 which, the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the appellant, along with his son viz., Suraj, was tr... | Bharatbhai_Babubhai_Rathod_vs_Ranjitsinh_M_Gohil_on_13_January_2022.PDF |
3. 2 Learned advocate Mr. S. B. Tolia for the claimant has further submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not allowing the claim C/FA/1170/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/01/2022 petition on the very erroneous ground and has also erred in appreciating the evidence in proper perspective. He has taken this Court through the do... | Bharatbhai_Babubhai_Rathod_vs_Ranjitsinh_M_Gohil_on_13_January_2022.PDF |
the appeal. He has also drawn attention about the judgment reported in 2012(10) SCALE 516 (K. Suresh versus New C/FA/1170/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/01/2022 India Insurance Co. Ltd. ) and also indicated the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Erudhaya Priya versus State Express Transport Corporation Ltd., re... | Bharatbhai_Babubhai_Rathod_vs_Ranjitsinh_M_Gohil_on_13_January_2022.PDF |
the driver side. It is also an uncontroverted fact that there is 50 feet width of the pakka road and also having 4 feet kachcha road on each side. Even then, the accident appears to be occurred somewhere in the C/FA/1170/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/01/2022 middle side of the road. It also transpires from the depositions of... | Bharatbhai_Babubhai_Rathod_vs_Ranjitsinh_M_Gohil_on_13_January_2022.PDF |
therefore, Rs. 6,893/-plus Rs. 1,718/-, which comes to Rs. 8,611/-towards prospective income per month. 6. 4. 2 Thereafter, considering the disability aspect, it seems that 80% is assessed as disability of the hand by the Doctor, who is Orthopedic Surgeon. In absence of any oral evidence of that Doctor, I found fit to ... | Bharatbhai_Babubhai_Rathod_vs_Ranjitsinh_M_Gohil_on_13_January_2022.PDF |
(i) Pain, suffering and trauma resulting from the accident; (ii) Loss of income including future income; (iii) The inability of the victim to lead a normal life together with its amenities; (iv) Medical expenses including those that the victim may be required to undertake in future; and (v) Loss of expectation of life.... | Bharatbhai_Babubhai_Rathod_vs_Ranjitsinh_M_Gohil_on_13_January_2022.PDF |
We are, thus, unequivocally of the view that there is merit in the contention of the appellant and the aforesaid principles with regard to future prospects must also be applied in the case of the appellant taking the permanent disability as 31. 1%. The quantification of the same on the basis of the judgment in National... | Bharatbhai_Babubhai_Rathod_vs_Ranjitsinh_M_Gohil_on_13_January_2022.PDF |
7. 6 Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith. Sd/-(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J) M. H. DAVEBharatbhai Babubhai Rathod vs Ranjitsinh M. Gohil on 13 January, 2022 Indian Kanoon-http://indiankanoon. org/doc/86146178/ 9 | Bharatbhai_Babubhai_Rathod_vs_Ranjitsinh_M_Gohil_on_13_January_2022.PDF |
README.md exists but content is empty.
- Downloads last month
- 4