Gujarat High Court
Budhabhai Raimalbhai Parmar (Died) vs Shivkumar R. Yadav on 6 May, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3260/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3260 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
BUDHABHAI RAIMALBHAI PARMAR (DIED) & ORS.
Versus
SHIVKUMAR R. YADAV & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3
MR VC THOMAS(5476) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA
Date : 06/05/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and award dated 12th August, 2022 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Kheda at Nadiad in MCAP No.811 of 2017, the appellants-original claimants are before this Court by way of present Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking enhancement in compensation.
Page 1 of 14 Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Tue May 27 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 30 21:55:54 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3260/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2025 undefined
2. The original claim of the claimants was of Rs.06,00,000/-. As against that, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.07,20,000/- under various heads as under.
Particulars Amount (Rs.)
Future loss of dependency 06,50,052/-
consortium 40,000/-
Loss of estate 15,000/-
Funeral 15,000/-
Total compensation 07,20,052/-
Which is rounded upto Rs.07,20,000/- as total amount of compensation.
3. The facts of the case can be summarised as under.
3.1 On 29th June, 2017 at about 05.00 p.m., deceased and her husband were travelling on the motorcycle bearing Registration No.GJ-16-BC-1494. The husband of the deceased was driving his motorcycle at slow speed, however while they reached Indore-Ahmedabad highway road, on the bridge of Mahisagar river, a Tanker bearing Registration No.GJ-12-Y-9925 being driven by the Page 2 of 14 Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Tue May 27 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 30 21:55:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3260/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2025 undefined driver in rash and negligent manner and in excessive speed, dashed with the motorcycle from behind and as a result thereof, deceased and her husband both fell down and receive serious injuries and ultimately, deceased succumb to the injuries.
3.2 The claimants thereby approached the learned Tribunal by way of petition under Section 166 of the Act for the compensation of Rs.06,00,000/- for untimely death of the deceased occurred in the vehicular accident. 3.3 Learned Tribunal, having considered the evidence on record, assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.05,000/- per month in absence of any documentary evidence to prove the income of the deceased at Rs.07,000/- as pleaded in the claim petition. The learned Tribunal considered the age of the deceased at 49 years. Thereafter the learned Tribunal, after having considered the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in the Page 3 of 14 Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Tue May 27 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 30 21:55:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3260/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2025 undefined case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi [(2017) 16 SCC 680], future prospective income was also added at 25% in the income. Thus, the monthly income assessed by the learned Tribunal arrived at Rs.06,250/- (Rs.05,000-/ + 25%). The learned Tribunal thereafter deducted one-third amount towards personal expenditure. Thus, net income for the purpose of considering the income under the head of loss of income arrived at Rs.04,167/- per month (Rs.06,250/- - 1/3). Applying the multiplier of 13, in all, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.06,50,052/- (Rs.04,167/-X12X13). 3.4 The learned Tribunal thereafter also awarded Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.40,000/- towards consortium. Thus, in all, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.07,20,000/- with 7.5% interest. 3.5 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with Page 4 of 14 Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Tue May 27 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 30 21:55:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3260/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2025 undefined the aforesaid, the appellants-original claimants have approached this Court by way of this Appeal seeking, inter alia, enhancement of compensation.
4. The coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 27th September, 2024 admitted the First Appeal and listed for hearing on 24th October, 2024 and that is how the present Appeal is come up today for final hearing. Record & Proceedings is also received and therefore, the present Appeal is taken up for final disposal.
5. I have heard learned advocate Mr.Nishit Bhalodi for the appellants-claimants and learned advocate Mr.V.C. Thomas for the respondent No.3- insurance company. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have though served, chosen not to appear and not contest the matter.
6. Learned advocate Mr.Bhalodi for the appellants-original claimants, while impugning the judgment and award, has made following Page 5 of 14 Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Tue May 27 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 30 21:55:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3260/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2025 undefined submissions.
(i) Learned advocate, at the outset, submitted that the present Appeal is filed on a very limited issue with regard to quantum only.
He submitted that the learned Tribunal while deciding the compensation under the head of future loss, has assessed the income of the deceased on lower side. Learned advocate submitted that income of the deceased said to have been Rs.07,000/- per month. However, without any rhyme or reason and under wrong guesswork, the learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.05,000/- per month. Learned advocate submitted that as such, as per the schedule of minimum wages, income of a person is stated to be Rs.08,000/- per month approximately. However, learned advocate submitted that he would restrict his claim to Rs.07,000/- per month as originally pleaded in the claim petition.
Page 6 of 14 Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Tue May 27 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 30 21:55:54 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3260/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2025 undefined
(ii) Learned advocate next submitted that even as per the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the dependents are required to be granted consortium of Rs.40,000/- plus 10% increase for every three years. He, therefore, submitted that the consortium of Rs.40,000/- awarded to only one dependent and case of the two dependents were not considered. Thus, learned advocate submitted that learned Tribunal has committed serious error. According to learned advocate for the appellants, consortium ought to have been awarded at the rate of Rs.48,000/- to each of the dependents. 6.1 By making above submissions, learned advocate for the appellants requested this Court to modify the award accordingly.
7. Per contra, learned advocate Mr.Thomas for the insurance company has vehemently opposed the present Appeal and has made following submissions.
Page 7 of 14 Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Tue May 27 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 30 21:55:54 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3260/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2025 undefined
(i) Learned advocate for the insurance company contended inter alia that the award is absolutely just and proper and no interference is required to be called for by this Court. Learned advocate submitted that the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.05,000/- per month in absence of any evidence produced with regard to income proof. According to learned advocate, the date of accident is of the year 2017 and keeping in mind the standard of living in that period, Rs.05,000/- income assessed by the learned Tribunal is perfectly justified. Learned advocate, however, could not dispute the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) with regard to consortium.
7.1 By making above submissions, learned advocate for the insurance company requests this Court to dismiss the Appeal in the interest of justice.
Page 8 of 14 Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Tue May 27 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 30 21:55:54 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3260/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2025 undefined
8. I have considered the submissions of the learned advocates for the respective parties and have gone through the Record & Proceedings of the case. No other and/or further submissions have been canvassed by learned advocates for the respective parties except what are stated hereinabove.
9. A short question that falls for consideration of this Court is whether the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal can be said to be adequate in nature?
10. So as to decide the aforesaid question, income deserves to be considered appropriately. So far as assessment of income is concerned with regard to a person who has no proof of income, the learned Tribunal and/or the Court can do some logical guesswork. While doing so, one of the yardsticks can be to peruse the schedule of minimum wages prevailing at the time of accident. In the instant case, although the minimum wages Page 9 of 14 Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Tue May 27 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 30 21:55:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3260/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2025 undefined during the period when the accident took place and stated to be Rs.08,118/- per month, however the appellant chosen to adopt his original pleading made in the claim petition i.e. Rs.07,000/- per month. Considering the fact and submissions made by learned advocate for the appellant, this Court would not like to delve further and would like to hold that income assessed by the learned Tribunal at Rs.05,000/- is on lower side. Accordingly, this Court would like to propose income of the deceased at Rs.07,000/- per month. Considering the age of the deceased, as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), 25% prospective income deserves to be added. Thus, the monthly income of the deceased would be Rs.08,750/- (Rs.07,000/- + 25%), out of which one-third amount deserves to be deducted towards personal expenditure which would come to Rs.02,917/-. Thus, the monthly income of the deceased would come to Rs.05,833/- (Rs.08,750/- - Page 10 of 14 Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Tue May 27 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 30 21:55:54 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3260/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2025 undefined Rs.02,917/-). So far as the age and the multiplier of 13 is concerned, the same is not disputed by either of the party and hence, whatever is awarded by the learned Tribunal deserves to be accepted. Thus, on overall consideration, future loss of income would come to Rs.09,09,948/- (Rs.05,833/- X 12 X 13). 10.1 With regard to amount of consortium, this Court feels that the learned Tribunal has not awarded compensation under the head of consortium as per the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). Considering the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in the said case, all the dependents are entitled to compensation under the head of consortium at Rs.40,000/-, with a further rider that the same shall be increased by 10% after every three years. Thus, considering the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the compensation under the head of consortium would Page 11 of 14 Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Tue May 27 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 30 21:55:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3260/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2025 undefined come to Rs.48,400/- to each of the claimants. Thus, the compensation under the head of consortium would come to Rs.01,45,200/- (Rs.48,400 X 3). Compensation under the head of funeral expenses and loss of estate also deserves to be modified in consonance with the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), which thus come to Rs.18,150/- each.
I answer the question accordingly.
11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, judgment and decree passed by the learned Tribunal deserves to be modified as under.
Sr. Particulars Amount
No. (Rs.)
1 Future loss of income 09,09,948/-
2 Loss of consortium 01,45,200/-
3 Loss of estate 18,150/-
4 Funeral expenses 18,150/-
Total compensation 10,91,448/-
minus Awarded amount - 07,20,000/-
Enhanced amount 03,71,448/-
12. The aforesaid amount of Rs.03,71,448/-
Page 12 of 14
Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Tue May 27 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 30 21:55:54 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3260/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2025
undefined
is to be paid with 7.5% interest p.a. The Appeal is accordingly allowed. Respondent No.3-insurance company is hereby directed to deposit the enhanced amount of Rs.03,71,448/- along with 7.5% interest from the date of claim application till its realisation within a period of eight weeks from today. On such deposit being made, the learned Tribunal is hereby directed to disburse the said amount in favour of the claimant/s by way of RTGS/NEFT after proper verification and identification in the account of the claimant/s.
13. Needless to clarify that at the time of condoning the delay, this Court vide order dated 04th September, 2024 passed in Civil Application No.3587 of 2024 directed the claimants not to claim interest for the delayed period of 335 days. Thus, the learned Tribunal is hereby directed to calculate the entire compensation along with interest accordingly.
Registry is directed to send the Record Page 13 of 14 Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Tue May 27 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 30 21:55:54 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3260/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/05/2025 undefined & Proceedings, if any, back to the Tribunal concerned forthwith.
(NIRAL R. MEHTA,J) ANUP Page 14 of 14 Uploaded by ANUP V PARIKH(HC00956) on Tue May 27 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 30 21:55:54 IST 2025