NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1047/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/09/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1047 of 2007
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1048 of 2007
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1049 of 2007
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1050 of 2007
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1051 of 2007
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
================================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
================================================================
DHURABHAI BECHARBHAI GADAT & 4 other(s)
Versus
ARJUNSINH CHETANSINH (DELETED) & 6 other(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR R.K.MANSURI(3205) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
DELETED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
MR JV JAPEE(358) for the Defendant(s) No. 4,5,6
MR SUNIL B PARIKH(582) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
MS LILU K BHAYA(1705) for the Defendant(s) No. 7
RULE UNSERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 2
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
Page 1 of 6
Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 15:55:45 IST 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1047/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/09/2023
undefined
Date : 04/09/2023
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The above appeals arise out of the common Award and Judgment, they are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.
2. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the appellants - original claimants have preferred the present appeals seeking enhancement of compensation.
3. The appellants had preferred Claim Petitions (1112/97, 1113/97, 263/98, 279/98 and 280/98) under the provisions of The Motor Vehicles Act before the MAC Tribunal (Aux.) Himmatnagar. The claim petition No. 1112 of 1997 was being filed by legal heirs of deceased Ramabhai Dhulabhai, who died in a road accident, whereas, the petitions as referred above were being filed by the injured claimants, who had sustained grievous injuries in the alleged accident.
4. Facts and circumstances giving rise to file present appeals are that, on 16.05.1997, on account of collusion of the tractor, trailer and truck, the persons traveling in the tractor trailer sustained injuries and one of the person i.e. Ramabhai Dhulabhai was passed away due to sustaining of the injuries. The legal heirs of deceased Ramabhai and others had preferred the aforesaid claim petitions before the Tribunal at Himmatnagar, joining the owner, driver and insurance company of both the vehicles. The learned Tribunal after considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, decided the Page 2 of 6 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 15:55:45 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1047/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/09/2023 undefined issue of negligence in the proportionate of 70:30 i.e. the truck driver was held negligent to the extent of 70% and driver of the tractor trailer held negligent to the extent of 30%. On the issue of quantum, the Tribunal in fatal case has awarded Rs.2,00,000/- (1112/97) and in the injury cases, awarded Rs.14,600/-, 11,900/0, 9200/- and Rs.9300/- (1113/97, 263/98, 279/98 and 280/98) respectively.
5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the amount of quantum awarded in each case, the appellants - original claimants have preferred the appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
6. This Court has heard learned counsel Mr. R.K. Mansuri, Mr. Sunil Parikh and Ms. Lilu Bhaya, for the respective parties.
7. Mr. R.K. Mansuri, learned counsel appearing for and on behalf of the appellants has submitted that, the amount awarded are on lower side and therefore, in view of decision of the Constitutional Bench (Pranay Shethi), the re-computation of the amount of compensation is necessary.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel Mr. Sunil Parikh and Ms. Lilu Bhaya, learned counsel submitted that, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the each of the claimants and considering their age as well as medical evidence, the reasonable amount of compensation was being awarded in each case and therefore, the findings recorded by the Tribunal do not warrant any interference.
Page 3 of 6 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 15:55:45 IST 2023NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1047/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/09/2023 undefined
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the material placed on record, the question falls for determination, is whether the appellants have made out a case for enhancement of amount in the compensation?
10. So far as the claim case No. 1112 of 1997 (First Appeal No. 1047 of 2007), filed by the legal heirs of deceased Ramabhai Dhulabhai is concerned, it appears that, the re-computation is sought, consequent to the decision of the Constitutional Bench in case of National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Shethi, (2017 ACJ SC 2700) , which has authoritatively settled the law on the aspect of determination of amount of compensation in fatal cases and other aspect like multiplier and addition of prospective income etc.. The deceased Ramabhai Dhulabhai died at the age of 27 years old, and was serving as a Hotel Boy with Jivan Jyot Hotel and salary certificate showing monthly income of Rs.2100/- was placed on record, but somehow the mark document could not be exhibited, as a result, the Tribunal has determined the monthly income at Rs.1500/- without considering the future prospect. The Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd instead of 1/4th as the number of legal heirs are more than two. In such circumstances, the amount of compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- is on lower side and same is required to be enhanced. Thus, therefore, considering the case of Pranay Shethi (supra) and Magma General Insurance Company (2018 ACJ 2782), the total compensation payable to the claimant is computed below:
Page 4 of 6 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 15:55:45 IST 2023NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1047/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/09/2023 undefined Sr. Particulars Amount No.
1 Loss of dependency Rs. 3,42,720/- (1600+40% future prospect-
1/4th towards personal expenses
(1600+640=2240 x12 = 26880-6720=
20160X 17 = 3,42,720)
2. Loss to estate Rs.15,000/-
3. Consortium Rs. 2,00,000 (40,000X5)
4. Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/-
Total Rs.5,72,720/-
11. In the aforesaid facts, the legal heirs of deceased Ramabhai Dhulabhai are entitled for the enhanced amount of compensation Rs.3,72,720/-.
12. The injured appellants prayed for enhancement of the compensation. On perusal of the impugned Award and Judgment and upon reanalysis of the record, this Court is of considered view that no fault can be found with the findings so recorded by the Tribunal so far as amount awarded to the injured claimants and therefore, the appeals filed by the injured claimants being devoid of any merits and are fail and dismissed accordingly.
13. The appeal being First Appeal No. 1047 of 2007 is partly allowed by enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.2,00,000/- to 5, 72,720/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6%.
Page 5 of 6 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 15:55:45 IST 2023NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1047/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/09/2023 undefined
14. It needs to be noted that, in the case of composite negligence the liability of the parties would be jointly and severally. Thus, therefore, the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 are held liable jointly and severally from the amount awarded in each case and accordingly, the appeals stands disposed of. Decree be drawn accordingly. The tribunal shall disburse the entire enhanced amount to the legal heirs of the deceased, after due proper verification, without investing the amount in the FDRs. In view of the Act policy of the tractor and trailer, Insurance Company Respondent no. 7 cannot be held liable to pay the amount of compensation and Tribunal has rightly exonerated the insurance company from its liability.
(ILESH J. VORA,J) P.S. JOSHI Page 6 of 6 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 15:55:45 IST 2023