Gujarat High Court
Shashikant Manilal Soneji vs The Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation on 11 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2153/2018 ORDER DATED: 11/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2153 of 2018
==========================================================
SHASHIKANT MANILAL SONEJI & ANR.
Versus
THE AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VILAV K BHATIA(5338) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MRS KALPANA K RAVAL(1046) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 11/02/2025
ORAL ORDER
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.47 of 2015 dated 19/12/2017 by the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, the appellants preferred this appeal whereby the learned tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.5,67,600/- with interest @ 9% and cost to be held liable to the opponents.
2. The brief facts of the case are that while son of the deceased was going on his scooter on 01/11/2014 at about 9:00 O'clock the dumper owned by the corporation bearing No.GJ-1-DV-695 came in rash and negligent manner and dashed with the vehicle of the deceased who succumbed to the serious injuries sustained by him.
2.1 The claim petition was filed seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- and the learned tribunal after considering the evidence on record awarded the compensation as recorded in paragraph 1 of this judgment.
Page 1 of 7 Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Tue Feb 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 11 23:06:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2153/2018 ORDER DATED: 11/02/2025 undefined
3. Heard learned advocate appearing for the respective parties.
4. Learned Advocate Mr.Bhatia for the appellant - org. claimants submitted that considering the oral evidence of the widow of the deceased the tribunal has not taken up the income of the deceased properly as the deceased was engaged in photography work. He would submit that appeal is limited to the aspect of taking appropriate income factor. He would further submit that the tribunal ought to have considered the prospective income of the deceased. He would further submit that tribunal has not granted any amount for loss of consortium whereas there are two persons dependents of the deceased; including the parents and therefore it is required to be enhanced. He would further submit that tribunal committed error in granting very low amount for loss of estate and funeral expenses which is on lower side and therefore in view of decision in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Shethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680], the compensation granted under the non-pecuniary head is required to be increased.
4.1 By making above submissions, he would submit to enhance the compensation awarded by the tribunal.
5. Learned Advocate Ms.Raval for respondent while adopting the argument of Mr.Raval would submit to pass appropriate order.
6. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and examining the records and proceedings minutely and evidence on record, it could be noticed that deceased lost his life in the vehicular accident. Since the alone bread winner of the family has lost his life, the entire family will ruin and would in lurch to maintain itself. Thus, the tribunal ought to have considered the income of the deceased Page 2 of 7 Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Tue Feb 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 11 23:06:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2153/2018 ORDER DATED: 11/02/2025 undefined rationalizing the rate of minimum wage to arrive at the dependency loss. To be noted that, deceased was survived by parents and considering the rate of minimum wage prevailing at that time for maintenance of family Rs.7,500/- would be just and fair income to be considered to assess the dependency loss. In view of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 2209 Of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.575 of 2025) Jitendra Vs Sadiya & Ors., the rate of minimum wage is required to be considered in absence of any evidence. Relevant discussion in paragraph 10 reads thus:
"10. We have heard the learned counsel for the Appellant. We are unable to agree with the view taken by the Tribunal and High Court on the income of the Appellant and the functional disability suffered by him. At the outset, we must refer to the exposition of this Court in Gurpreet Kaur and Ors. v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors.1, wherein it was stated the notifications under the Minimum Wages Act can be a guiding factor in cases where there is no evidence available to evaluate monthly income."
7. It would be worth to mention that looking to the work with which the deceased was involved and in absence of of evidence to have continuous source of income of the deceased 40% rise in his income is granted in view of decision in case of Pranay Shethi (supra). Since the number of dependents are more the one-half deduction towards the personal and pocket expenses is required to be granted.
8. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur And Ors. [AIR 2020 SUPREME COURT 3076] the Apex Court has recognized as to grant or approve the compensation for loss of consortium to each member of the deceased. In the present case, Page 3 of 7 Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Tue Feb 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 11 23:06:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2153/2018 ORDER DATED: 11/02/2025 undefined tribunal has not granted any amount for loss consortium, lost to estate and funeral and obsequies expenses. Here in the present case, deceased was survived by his parents. Due to death of deceased each of the family member met with the loss and thus the loss of consortium for spousal, filial and parental is required to be granted and it is according granted at Rs.48,400/- each for family member of the deceased. The tribunal has also not granted any separate amount for loss of estate and funeral expenses which as per the decision in case of Pranay Sethi (supra) is granted at Rs.18,150/- each.
9. In Kavita Balothiya vs. Santosh Kumar [2024 (0) ACJ 1639] the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that no restriction upon the Court to award compensation exceeding the amount claimed and it is the duty of the tribunal or Court under Section 168 of the MV Act, to award just compensation. Paragraph 5 and 6 thereof reads thus:
"5. Learned counsel for the appellants has brought to our notice the decision of this Court in Mona Baghel &ors. vs. Sajjan Singh Yadav & Ors. in (Civil Appeal @ out of SLP(C) NO.29207/2018 wherein the Court has observed as under:
"The law is well settled that in the matter of compensation, the amount actually due and payable is to be awarded despite the claimants having sought for a lesser amount and the claim petition being valued at a lesser value.
Our view, is fortified by the decision of this Court in the Case of Ramla and Others Versus National Insurance Company Limited and Others 2019 2 SCC 192, wherein, it is held as under:
"Though the claimants had claimed a total compensation of Rs.25,00,000 in their claim petition filed before the Tribunal, we feel that the compensation which the claimants are entitled to is higher than the same as mentioned supra. There is no restriction that the Court cannot award compensation exceeding the claimed amount, since the Page 4 of 7 Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Tue Feb 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 11 23:06:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2153/2018 ORDER DATED: 11/02/2025 undefined function of the Tribunal or Court under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is to award just compensation. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial and welfare legislation. A just compensation is one which is reasonable on the basis of evidence produced on record. It cannot be said to have become time-barred. Further, there is no need for a new cause of action to claim an enhanced amount. The Courts are duty-bound to award just compensation. (See the Judgments of this Court in (a) Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh,
(b) Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, (c) Ibrahim v. Raju)"
6. The above decision clearly lays down that there is no restriction upon the court to award compensation exceeding the amount claimed. It is the duty of the Tribunal or Court under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to award just compensation. Since the Act is a beneficial legislation a just compensation is one which is fair and reasonable on the basis of the evidence adduced irrespective of the amount claimed."
10. In Chandra Mani Nanda vs. Sarat Chandra Swain & Anr., [2024 INSC 777] the Hon'ble Apex Court has again reiterated the ratio that it is the duty of the Court to assess the fair compensation and in paragraph 20 has held as under:
"20. An argument is raised by learned counsel for the insurance company that the appellant has initially claimed a sum of 230,00,000/- and since the same having been awarded to him by the High Court, no further enhancement is possible. We cannot accept this argument and it is duly rejected. It is a settled proportion of law, that the amount of compensation claimed is not a bar for the Tribunal and the High Court to award more than what is claimed, provided it is found to be just and reasonable. It is the duty of the Court to assess fair compensation. Rough calculation made by the claimant is not a bar or the upper limit. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment of this Court in the case of Meena Devi vs. Nunu Chand Mahto".Page 5 of 7 Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Tue Feb 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 11 23:06:57 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2153/2018 ORDER DATED: 11/02/2025 undefined
11. Therefore, total compensation would be as under, which the claimant/s is/are entitled to get.
Particulars Amount (Rs.)
Loss of Dependency: 10,08,000/-
(Rs.7,500/- Income (-) one-half towards personal and pocket expenses (+) 40% future prospect (x) 12
(x) 16 (multiplier).
Loss of consortium (Rs.48,400/- x 2) 96,800/-
Loss of Estate & Funeral Expenses 36,300/-
(Rs.18,150/- each)
Total 11,41,100/-
Already awarded by the tribunal 5,67,600/-
Enhanced amount of compensation 5,73,500/-
12. In wake of above, I hold that all the opponents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimants and claimants are entitled to get the total amount of compensation of Rs.11,41,100/- with 9% p.a. interest from the date of filing the claim petition till its realisation, which would meet the ends of justice. Rest of the direction(s) of the Tribunal remain same.
13. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellant is partly allowed. The opponent is held liable to pay the compensation of enhanced amount of Rs.5,73,500/- with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of the petition till its realization. The opponent is directed to deposit the amount of compensation with interest and costs within six weeks from today as per the ratio decided by the tribunal.
14. Upon such deposit, the Tribunal shall disburse the entire awarded Page 6 of 7 Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Tue Feb 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 11 23:06:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2153/2018 ORDER DATED: 11/02/2025 undefined amount lying in the FDR and/or with the Tribunal, with accrued interest thereon, if any, to the claimants, by account payee cheque / NEFT / RTGS, after proper verification and after following due procedure. Since during pendency of the appeal, both the claimants are expired and they are replaced by their legal heirs and representatives, the learned tribunal shall pass fresh order for apportionment.
15. While making the payment, the Tribunal shall deduct the courts fees, if not paid, in accordance with rules/law. If order of apportionment is not made by the tribunal, it shall be made while disbursing the amount of compensation.
16. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.
(J. C. DOSHI,J) sompura Page 7 of 7 Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Tue Feb 11 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Feb 11 23:06:57 IST 2025