Gujarat High Court
Nisha Kiranbhai Jadav vs Bhikhabhai Dhulabhai Jadav on 31 January, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6138/2024 ORDER DATED: 31/01/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6138 of 2024
==========================================================
NISHA KIRANBHAI JADAV & ANR.
Versus
BHIKHABHAI DHULABHAI JADAV & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 31/01/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners challenged order of apportionment made by the learned Tribunal vide order dated 9.3.2024, whereby the claimants are equally entitled to have share out of 50% amount of total compensation and other 50% amount is ordered to be invested in any nationalized bank. The learned Tribunal has also ordered that 100% share of the minor is deposited in the nationalized bank till they attain age of majority.
2. Heard learned advocate for the appellants.
3. According to the petitioners, respondent No.1 is father, respondent No.2 is mother and respondent No.3 is real brother of the deceased. In claim petition, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 of the present petition are joined as claimant Nos.3,4 and 5. The learned Tribunal passed the order to apportion the amount Page 1 of 2 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Fri Jan 31 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 01 05:19:17 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6138/2024 ORDER DATED: 31/01/2025 undefined equally amongst the claimants.
4. In the present matter, notice is served to the other side, but none remained present to contest the present petition.
5. Apparently, the order of the learned Tribunal to apportion the amount equally amongst the claimants is not correct. The minor children of the claimants are to be given more weightage. Real brother being the claimant No.5 since his father is alive on the date of the claim petition, cannot be treated as dependent in the income of the deceased being his real brother. Therefore, the learned Tribunal was required to pass necessary order considering all this aspect. An error much less error of understanding has been committed by the learned Tribunal and therefore, the petition deserves consideration.
6. Resultantly, present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 9.3.2024 passed by the learned Tribunal is hereby quashed and set aside.
6.1 The learned Tribunal is directed to pass fresh order for apportionment of the compensation in view of above observation within two weeks from receipt of this order. However, the learned Tribunal can also consider the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of A.V.Padma Versus R.Venugopal, 2012 (3) SCC 378 for the purpose of disbursement. Direct service is permitted.
(J. C. DOSHI,J) SHEKHAR P. BARVE Page 2 of 2 Uploaded by SHEKHAR P. BARVE(HC00200) on Fri Jan 31 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 01 05:19:17 IST 2025