Gujarat High Court
Mehul Vallabhbhai Gori vs Kamal Laxminarayan Gupta on 3 December, 2021
Bench: Niral R. Mehta
C/FA/4504/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4504 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA
================================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed NO
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy NO
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question NO
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
================================================================
MEHUL VALLABHBHAI GORI
Versus
KAMAL LAXMINARAYAN GUPTA & 1 other(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR PREMAL S RACHH(3297) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,1.1,1.2
MR GC MAZMUDAR(1193) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
MR HG MAZMUDAR(1194) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
SERVED BY AFFIX. (R)(67) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA
Date : 03/12/2021
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and award dated
18.9.2007 passed by the learned MAC Tribunal (Main), Jamnagar in
MAC Petition No.625 of 2003, the appellants - original claimants have
approached this Court by way of present First Appeal under Section 173
C/FA/4504/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2021
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
2. The claimants have filed the claim petition under Section 166 of
the MV Act before the learned Tribunal for the compensation of Rs.5
lakhs for the death of their son, namely, Mehul Vallabhbhai Gori due to
the accident that took place on 24.9.2003, while he was on pilgrimage
and going to Mataji Na Madh, Kutch by walking. At that time, the Tanker
bearing registration No.GJ-12-U-5247 driven in a rash and negligent
manner, ran over some of the pilgrims including deceased Mehul. The
learned Tribunal has awarded the compensation as under :
Amount Particulars
Rs.1,58,000/- Loss of dependency
Rs.20,000/- Conventional Amount
Rs.2,000/- Funeral ceremony
Rs.1,80,400/- Total
3. It is the say of the claimants that their son Mehul Vallabhbhai Gori
was unmarried at the time of accident and was on pilgrimage and going to
Mataji Na Madh by walking. It is their further case that their son was
aged 19 years at the time of accident and was earning Rs.6000/- per
month by selling fruits and vegetables.
C/FA/4504/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2021
4. Upon service of notice, the respondent No.2 - Insurance Co.
appeared and contested the claim petition by filing the Written Statement.
The respondent No.2 - Insurance Co. in its Written Statement mainly
denied the income, age and occupation of the deceased. Over and above,
the respondent No.2 - Insurance Co. has also raised dispute with regard
to valid and effective driving licence as well as non-joinder of driver of
the offending vehicle as party respondent. The learned Tribunal, however,
having considered the evidence on record, held the driver of the offending
Tanker bearing No. GJ-12-U-5247 as solely responsible for the accident
in question. The Tribunal has, for the purpose of determining the
compensation more particularly under the head of 'loss of dependency'
considered the income of the deceased at Rs.2200/- per month and
Rs.26,400/- per annum. The learned Tribunal has further considered the
prospect of future rise in income, fixed the income at Rs.39,600/- per
annum. Since the deceased was unmarried, the learned Tribunal has
deducted 2/3rd amount for his personal expenses. Thus, the dependency
benefit calculated at Rs.13,200/- per annum. Looking to the age of the
deceased, the learned Tribunal awarded multiplier of 12 and, therefore,
compensation under the head of loss of dependency came to be calculated
and awarded at Rs.1,58,400/- (Rs.13,200 x 12). The learned Tribunal has
further awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- as conventional amount for the loss
of expectation of life and also awarded Rs.2000/- for expenses incurred
C/FA/4504/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2021
for funeral charges etc. Thus, in all, the learned Tribunal has awarded a
sum of Rs.1,80,400/- with 10% interest per annum from the date of filing
of the claim petition till realization.
5. Therefore, being aggrieved by the aforesaid, the appellants -
original claimants have preferred this First Appeal requesting, inter-alia,
for enhancement of the compensation in accordance with law.
6. Mr.Premal Rachh, learned advocate for the appellants - original
claimants, submitted that the learned Tribunal has not awarded just
compensation to the heirs of the deceased. Learned advocate further
submitted that the learned Tribunal has not considered the evidence on
record in its true perspective and, therefore, the compensation awarded by
the learned Tribunal is on lower side. Mr.Rachh, learned advocate, further
submitted that the learned Tribunal has erred in awarding the
compensation under the head of loss of dependency by not adopting
proper multiplier as well as deducting more amount towards personal
expenses. According to learned advocate for the appellants, the learned
Tribunal should not have deducted 2/3rd amount towards the personal
expenditure. Lastly, learned advocate for the appellants - original
claimants has relied upon the decisions of the Apex Court in case of
Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, reported in 2009 ACJ
C/FA/4504/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2021
1298 and in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi &
Others, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and urged before the Court to
allow the Appeal keeping in view the ratio laid down by the Apex Court.
7. Per contra, Mr.G.C.Majmudar, learned advocate for the
respondent No.2 - Insurance Co., opposed the Appeal on the ground that
the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and fair. Learned
advocate further submitted that the learned Tribunal has rightly adopted
the multiplier and also rightly deducted 2/3rd portion towards personal
expenditure. Mr.G.C.Majmudar, learned advocate for the respondent
No.2 - Insurance Co., however, could not dispute and distinguish the
ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra)
and Pranay Sethi (Supra).
8. Heard both the learned advocates for the respective parties and also
perused the records and proceedings of the concerned Tribunal.
9. Considering the submissions of the respective learned advocates,
undisputed fact emerges are that the age of deceased was 18 years as
admitted by the appellant No.2 in her cross-examination before the
learned Tribunal, the income of the deceased at Rs.2200/- per month
which has not been challenged by the Insurance Co. by accepting the
C/FA/4504/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2021
award of the learned Tribunal, awarding multiplier of 12.
10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, since the
respondent No.2 - Insurance Co. has not challenged the award of the
learned Tribunal, therefore, same has been accepted in toto. Thus, now
only aspect which can be considered is with regard to quantum of the
compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal whether is just and proper
or not. Therefore, in my opinion, the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in
the case of Sarla Verma (Supra) and Pranay Sethi (Supra) will have
to be made applicable. Hence, by applying the said ratio, the appellants -
original claimants are entitled to the compensation as under :
Particulars Amount
Loss of dependency Rs.2200/- income per month +
40% rise = Rs.3080/- - (minus) one
half deduction = Rs.1540/- x 12 =
Rs.18,480/- x 18 (multiplier) =
Rs.3,32,640/-
Loss of Consortium Rs.80,000/- (Rs.40,000/- x 2)
Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/-
Rs.4,42,640/-
- Rs.1,80,400/- (awarded by the
Tribunal)
Total Rs.2,62,240/-
11. In view of the aforesaid, the appellants - original claimants are
entitled to aforesaid enhanced amount of Rs.2,62,240/- with 7.5% interest
C/FA/4504/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/12/2021
from the date of application till realization. Under the circumstances, the
Appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. The respondent No.2 -
Insurance Co. is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.2,62,240/- with 7.5%
interest within a period of 8 weeks from the date of the order with the
concerned learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal is further directed to
issue account payee cheque in the name of the appellants - original
claimants, after due verification. R & P be sent back forthwith to the
concerned learned Tribunal.
(NIRAL R. MEHTA,J)
V.J. SATWARA
