Gujarat High Court
Bhavnaben Babubhai Chudasma L.H. And ... vs Pipaliya Laljibhai Ramjibhai on 13 January, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1679/2019 ORDER DATED: 13/01/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1679 of 2019
==========================================================
BHAVNABEN BABUBHAI CHUDASMA L.H. AND REPRESENTATIVES OF
DECD. BABUBHAI BALUBHAI CHUDASMA & ORS.
Versus
PIPALIYA LALJIBHAI RAMJIBHAI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. HEMAL SHAH(6960) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
MR GC MAZMUDAR(1193) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
MR HG MAZMUDAR(1194) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 13/01/2025
ORAL ORDER
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgement and award dated 19/11/2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(Aux.) at Rajula in claim case no. 09/2012, the appellants have preferred present appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 whereby the tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.5,17,500/- holding all the opponents jointly and severally with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the realization.
2. The short facts of the case are That on 28/01/2012, the deceased was riding his motorcycle number GJ-11X-6938 at that time the opponent no.1 came in a rash and negligent manner in rickshaw no. GJ-11X-2435 and dashed with the motor cycle of the deceased and hence the deceased succumbed to the injuries. It is pertinent to note that the FIR and chargesheet was filed against the driver of the opponent vehicle that is opponent no. 1. The accident took place due to the negligence of the driver of rickshaw which belonged to the opponent no. 2 and the same Page 1 of 7 Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Tue Jan 21 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 01 00:36:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1679/2019 ORDER DATED: 13/01/2025 undefined was insured with the opponent no. 3.
2.1 The claim petition was filed seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- and the learned tribunal after considering the evidence on record awarded the compensation as recorded in paragraph 1 of this judgment.
3. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.
4. Learned Advocate Mr.Shah for the appellant - org. claimants submitted that tribunal has not granted the future prospect while granting compensation as the deceased was involved in the repairing work of electrical appliances. He would submit that widow of the deceased entered into the witness box and has deposed as to how the deceased was earning and maintaining his livelihood. He would further submit that tribunal has only granted Rs.40,000/- for loss of consortium whereas there are total five persons dependents of the deceased; including the parents and children of the deceased and therefore it is required to be enhanced. He would further submit that tribunal committed error in granting only Rs.15,000/- 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 Mr.Majmudar for respondent no.3 would submit that the tribunal has not committed any error in passing the award and Page 2 of 7 Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Tue Jan 21 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 01 00:36:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1679/2019 ORDER DATED: 13/01/2025 undefined therefore this Court may not interfere with the said finding.
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 was doing repairing work of electrical appliances and earning his livelihood. To be noted that, on demise of deceased, the family had lost bread winner of the family. Human loss is always inaccessible. When guilt of a killer road accident is taken place wherein the sole bread winner of the family lost his life, the entire family will ruin and put in lurch to maintain itself if the just and fair compensation is not assessed. 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 25% rise in his income is required to be granted in view of decision in case of Pranay Shethi (supra). Since the number of dependents are more the one-forth deduction towards the personal and pocket expenses is required to be granted.
7. 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, tribunal has granted Rs.20,000/- as global amount for loss consortium, lost to estate and funeral and obsequies expenses. Here in the present case, deceased was survived by his parents, spouse and two minor children. 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 Page 3 of 7 Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Tue Jan 21 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 01 00:36:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1679/2019 ORDER DATED: 13/01/2025 undefined decision in case of Pranay Sethi (supra) is granted at Rs.18,150/- each. Insofar as the negligence aspect is concerned, the tribunal has attributed 10% negligence to the deceased which is continued to operate while increasing the amount of compensation.
8. 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 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 Page 4 of 7 Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Tue Jan 21 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 01 00:36:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1679/2019 ORDER DATED: 13/01/2025 undefined 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."
9. 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 Jan 21 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 01 00:36:41 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1679/2019 ORDER DATED: 13/01/2025 undefined
10. Therefore, total compensation would be as under, which the claimant/s is/are entitled to get.
Particulars Amount (Rs.)
Loss of Dependency: 6,30,000/-
(Rs.4,000/- Income (-) one-fourth towards personal and pocket expenses (+) 25% future prospect (x) 12
(x) 14 (multiplier).
Loss of consortium (Rs.48,400/- x 5) 2,42,000/-
Loss of Estate & Funeral Expenses 36,300/-
(Rs.18,150/- each)
Total 9,08,300/-
(-) Negligence at 10% 90,830/-
Total 8,17,470/-
Already awarded by the tribunal 5,17,570/-
Enhanced amount of compensation 2,99,970/-
11. 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.8,17,470/-.
12. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellant is partly allowed. The opponents are held liable to pay the compensation of enhanced amount of Rs.2,99,470/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of filing of the petition till its realization. The insurance company 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.
13. Upon such deposit, the Tribunal shall disburse the entire awarded Page 6 of 7 Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Tue Jan 21 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 01 00:36:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1679/2019 ORDER DATED: 13/01/2025 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 and as per the apportionment fixed by the tribunal.
14. 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.
15. 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 Jan 21 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 01 00:36:41 IST 2025