Gujarat High Court
Nutanben Mafatbhai Patel vs Udaybhai Shivaji on 6 December, 2021
Bench: Ashutosh J. Shastri
C/FA/3487/2021 ORDER DATED: 06/12/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3487 of 2021
==========================================================
NUTANBEN MAFATBHAI PATEL
Versus
UDAYBHAI SHIVAJI
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR C P CHANIYARA(6836) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MR RATILAL V SAKARIA(6613) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
SHABANA N ANSARI(9648) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
MR RATHIN P RAVAL(5013) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE
ARAVIND KUMAR
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI
Date : 06/12/2021
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR)
1. This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of the compensation
not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation determined by
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Rural) in Motor
Accident Claim Petition No.1757 of 1999, whereunder Tribunal has
determined the total compensation to the claimants at Rs.9,76,452/-
with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of
the claim petition / application till the date of payment or realization,
whichever is earlier.
2. We have heard the arguments of Mr. Ratilal V. Sakaria, learned
advocate appearing for the appellants- claimants and Mr. Rathin P.
Raval, learned advocate appearing for the respondent.
3. By dispensing with the calling of the records and proceedings of
the Tribunal and on the strength of arguments addressed by learned
advocates appearing for the parties, we dispose of the appeal by
C/FA/3487/2021 ORDER DATED: 06/12/2021
following order.
4. Having regard to the fact that the road accident had occurred on
2.9.1999, resulting in death of Shri Mafatlal Prahlatbhai Patel, the
husband of the first claimant and the son of fourth claimant as a
result of accidental injuries sustained, issuance of policy to the
offending vehicle by the third respondent - Insurer and said insurance
policy being in force or in vogue as on the date of accident, are all
admitted facts or in other words, it is not in dispute and the award
fastening the liability of the insurer having not been disputed or in
other words, insurer having accepted its liability and the fact that
keeping this appeal pending by admitting the same would not serve
any fruitful purpose,we have taken up this appeal for final disposal.
5. It is the contention of Mr. Ratilal Sakaria, learned counsel
appearing for the claimants- appellants, that Tribunal erred in not
awarding the parental consortium to the two minor children, as held
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of United India Insurance
Company Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and Others (Order
dated 30.6.2020 in Civil Appeal No.2705 of 2020) and as such, he
seeks for award of the same. He would also elaborate his submissions
by contending that Tribunal has erred in not awarding rightful
compensation or just compensation and deduction of 1/3rd of the
income of the deceased as personal living expenses by construing the
number of claimants as three, by completely ignoring that the father
of the deceased, namely the fourth claimant, was also dependent and
was depending on his income and thereby as on the date of his death,
number of dependents were four and on the date of filing of the claim
petition also, number of dependents were four. Whereas, learned
counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would support the
judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and would contend that
what is awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and does not
C/FA/3487/2021 ORDER DATED: 06/12/2021
call for any interference.
6. Having regard to the afore-stated facts, we notice that even as
on the date of filing of the claim petition, there were four claimants,
namely the wife, two children and the father of the deceased. As such,
the Tribunal was not justified in construing the living expenses as
1/3rd, which is contrary to the dicta laid down by the Apex Court in
the case of Smt. Sarla verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation and Another (Order dated 15.4.2009 in Civil Appeal
No.3483 of 2008) as well as in the case of Satinder Kaur (supra).
Hence, applying the principles laid down therein, we are of the
considered view that the compensation payable to the claimants
towards loss of dependency requires to be redetermined by construing
the living expenses as 1/4th instead of 1/3rd.
7. Insofar as the compensation payable towards parental
consortium, having been ignored by the Tribunal, we are of the
considered view that each of the claimants, namely claimant Nos.2
and 3, would be entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- each. In that view of
the matter, the compensation is redetermined as under:-
(i) Income per month : Rs. 07,000/-
Future Prospects 30% : Rs. 02,100/-
______________
Rs. 09,100/-
Less 1/4th towards living expenses : Rs. 02,215/-
_______________
Net loss of income to dependents
6825 X 12 months X 13 : Rs.10,64,000/-
(ii) Loss of Estate : Rs.00,15,000/-
(iii) Funeral Expenses : Rs.00,15,000/-
(iv) Parental consortium to Claimants(2+3) : Rs.00,80,000/-
________________
Rs.11,74,000/-
________________
C/FA/3487/2021 ORDER DATED: 06/12/2021
For the reasons afore-stated, we proceed to pass the following
order:-
:ORDER:
(1) Appeal is ALLOWED in part.
(2) Kudgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Rural) in Motor Accident Claim
Petition No.1757 of 1999 is modified and in substitution to
what has been awarded by the Tribunal, a sum of
Rs.11,74,000/- is hereby awarded, which shall carry
interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the petition till
date of payment or deposit, whichever is earlier.
(3) Third respondent is directed to deposit the entire award
amount with interest calculated upto date before the
jurisdictional Tribunal within SIX WEEKS from the date of
receipt of the copy of this order, excluding the amount, if
any, already deposited.
(4) Pending Civil Application, if any, stands consigned to
records as it would not survive for consideration.
Sd/-
(ARAVIND KUMAR,CJ)
Sd/-
(ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI, J)
OMKAR
