Gujarat High Court
National Insurance Company Ltd vs Rami Miteshkumar Bhikhabhai on 1 April, 2021
Bench: R.M.Chhaya
C/FA/1682/2013 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1682 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
=============================================
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 ?
=============================================
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
Versus
RAMI MITESHKUMAR BHIKHABHAI & 6 other(s)
=============================================
Appearance:
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
DELETED(20) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MR MAULIK J SHELAT(2500) for the Defendant(s) No. 5
MS MITA S PANCHAL(530) for the Defendant(s) No. 6,7
NOTICE SERVED(4) for the Defendant(s) No. 5
=============================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
Date : 01/04/2021
ORAL JUDGMENT
1.0. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and award dated 18.2.2013 passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux), Court No.9, Ahmedabad, the
appellant Insurance Company has preferred this appeal.
2.0. The following facts emerge from the record of the appeal.
2.1. The record shows that the deceased Abbas Husainbhai
C/FA/1682/2013 JUDGMENT
was traveling in Commander Jeep bearing registration No.
_GJ2K1975 at about 9 p.m on 20.05.2001. It is the case
of the claimants that when Commander Jeep reached
Chatral village near Nirma Factory another Marshal Jeep
bearing registration No.GJ24A4545 came from other
side and dashed with the Jeep, in which, the deceased was
travelling. An FIR was lodged with the Kalol Police Station
being and present claim petition came to be filed by the
claimants under Section 166 of the Act and claim
compensation of Rs.6 lakhs.
2.2. It was the case of the original claimants that the
deceased was working at Sidhpur in Lucky Light and
Decorator and was earning Rs.5000/. The original claimants
examined one Husenabibi Husenbhai Zalori at Exh.42 and
Batulbibi Mohmad Rafik Zalori at Exh.67 and also further
relied upon the documentary evidence such as FIR at Exh.47,
FIR at Exh. 48, Panchnama of place of accident at Exh.49,
Chargesheet at Exh. 50, Inquest panchnama at Exh.51, PM
Report at Exh.52, Driving license at Exh.53, RC Book of Jeep
No. GJ 24 A 4545 at Exh. 54, Insurance Police of Jeep No.
GJ 24 A 4545 at Exh. 55, driving license of opponent no.4
at Exh.56, RC Book of Jeep No. GJ2K1975 at Exh.57,
Insurance Police of Jeep No. GJ2K1975 at Exh.58, death
certificate of deceased at Exh.59 and Ration Card at Exh.60.
The Tribunal after appreciating the evidence on record
determined the income of the deceased at Rs.3000/ per
month and considered the increase in income by way of
C/FA/1682/2013 JUDGMENT
prospective income to the tune of 30% and after deducting
1/3rd towards personal expenses, applying multiplier 18,
awarded a sum of Rs.5,61,600/. Over and above same, the
Tribunal also awarded a further amount of Rs.15000/
towards other conventional heads including funeral expenses
and thus awarded total compensation of Rs.5,76,600/ with
9% interest from the date of filing of claim petition till its
realization.
2.3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and award, the appellant Insurance Company has
preferred present appeal.
3.0. Heard Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati, learned advocate for the
appellant, Ms. Mita Panchal, learned advocate for the original
claimants and Mr. Maulik Shelat, learned advocate for the
other Insurance Company.
4.0. Mr. Nanavati, learned advocate for the appellant has
candidly submitted that the income determined by the
Tribunal at Rs.3000/ is just. and proper. Mr. Nanavati
further contended that in fact the claimants would be entitled
to increase in income by way of prospective income to the
extent of 40% instead of 30% granted by the Tribunal.
However, as the deceased was unmarried, the Tribunal has
committed an error in deducting 1/3rd towards personal
expenses instead of 1/2. According to Mr. Nanavati, other
parameter of multiplier also is as per the judgment of the
C/FA/1682/2013 JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance
Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. reported in (2017) 16
SCC 680. On the aforesaid ground, Mr. Nanavati contended
that the impugned judgment and award deserves to be
modified.
5.0. Per contra, Ms. Mita Panchal, learned advocate.
opposed this appeal and has submitted that the Tribunal has
awarded just compensation and no interference is called for
and contended that appeal being merit less and deserves to
be dismissed.
6.0. Mr. Maulik Shelat, learned advocate for the other
Insurance Company has submitted that this Court may pass
appropriate order.
7.0. No other and further submissions/ grounds/
contentions have been raised by the learned advocate for the
respective parties.
8.0. I have perused the original record and proceedings of
the case. Following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), in facts of this case,
the respondents claimants shall be entitled to 40%
prospective income instead of 30% as granted by the
Tribunal. However, record clearly shows that the deceased
was admittedly bachelor. Considering the ratio laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of the Sarla Verma vs.
C/FA/1682/2013 JUDGMENT
Delhi Transport Corporation reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 in
case of unmarried person deduction towards personal
expenses and in this case deduction would be 1/2 instead of
1/3. Rest of the award does not require any modification.
8.1. Having come to the aforesaid conclusion,
therefore, the respondents claimants would be entitled
to compensation as under:
" 3000/ (per month) + 1200 (40% prospective)=
4200/ minus Rs.2100 (1/2 towards persons
expenses)= 2100/ x 12= 25,200/ pa x 18
(Multiplier)= 4,53,600/ and Rs.15000/ toward
conventional amount for loss of estate and Rs.15000/
towards loss Funeral Expenses"
The Claimants would be entitled to total compensation
of Rs.4,83,600/.As the Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,76,600/
the appellant Insurance Company would be entitled to refund
of an amount of Rs.93,000/. The rest of the award remains
as it is. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed to the
aforesaid extent. The impugned judgment and award is
modified to the aforesaid extent. However, there shall be no
order as to costs. Registry is directed to send the original
record and proceedings back to the Tribunal forthwith.
(R.M.CHHAYA, J)
KAUSHIK J. RATHOD
