Gujarat High Court
Ahmedabad Municipal Transport ... vs Heirs Of Devdutt Kaluram Deswal, ... on 15 December, 2021
Bench: R.M.Chhaya
C/FA/657/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/12/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 657 of 2011
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 208 of 2011
In
FIRST APPEAL NO. 657 of 2011
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
and
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT
==========================================================
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 ?
==========================================================
AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL TRANSPORT SERVICE
Versus
HEIRS OF DEVDUTT KALURAM DESWAL, PUSHPAKUMARI WD/O
DEVDUTT & 5 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) assisted by MR DEVANG BHATT for the
Appellant(s) No. 1
MR SANDIP C SHAH(792) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
NOTICE SERVED(4) for the Defendant(s) No. 6
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
and
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT
Date : 15/12/2021
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA)
C/FA/657/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/12/2021
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the
judgment and award dated 23.12.2010 passed
by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(Main), Gandhinagar in MACP no.414/00, the
appellant-Ahmedabad Municipal Transport
Service has preferred this appeal under
Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
(hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and
the original claimants have preferred the
Cross Objections.
2. Following facts emerge from the record of
the appeal:-
2.1 That, the accident took place on 22.5.2000.
Shri Devduttbhai was driving his Maruti Van.
He was passing through Chandkheda area along
with his son Hiren at about 02:10 p.m.
Record indicates that at that moment, a bus
of AMTS came in a rash and negligent manner
from the other side and dashed with Maruti
Van. Devduttbhai who was driving the vehicle
succumbed to serious injuries and died. The
claim petition was filed being MACP
No.414/00 and claimed compensation of
Rs.25,00,000/-. It is the case of the
original claimants that on the date of the
accident, the deceased was 55 years old and
C/FA/657/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/12/2021
was serving as Deputy Superintendent
Engineer in ONGC at Asam and was getting
monthly salary of Rs.40,000/- and thereby,
claimed compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-. The
Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence on
record, determined the income of the
deceased at Rs.20,800/- per month and
adopting multiplier of 9, awarded
compensation of Rs.22,46,400/- under the
head of dependency loss. The Tribunal in all
awarded Rs.11,37,200/- towards total
compensation with 9% interest per annum from
the date of filing of the claim petition
till its realization and being aggrieved by
the same, the appellant - AMTS has preferred
this appeal and the original claimants have
preferred the Cross Objections.
3. Heard Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned advocate
assisted by M r. Devang Bhatt, learned
advocate for the appellant and Mr. Sandip
Shah, learned advocate for the original
claimants.
4. Mr. Bhatt, learned advocate for the
appellant has contended that the Tribunal
has committed an error in deciding the issue
of negligence. Referring to the Panchnama
Exh.26, Mr. Bhatt contended that the
C/FA/657/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/12/2021
accident occurred because of the negligence
on the part of the Maruti Van and therefore,
the driver of Maruti Van was responsible for
the accident and the Tribunal ought to have
held that the driver of the Maruti Van was
solely negligent. According to Mr. Bhatt, it
was the case of contributory negligence and
Mr. Bhatt prayed that the appeal be allowed
as prayed for. Mr. Bhatt contended that the
Cross Objections are without any merit and
the same deserves to be dismissed.
5. Mr. Sandip Shah, learned advocate for the
original claimants has opposed the appeal.
Mr. Shah contended that the Tribunal has
rightly appreciated the evidence on record
and has rightly held that the drivers of
both the vehicles were equally responsible
i.e. in the ratio of 50:50. Mr. Shah further
contended that considering the fact that the
deceased was 55 years old on the date of the
accident, the Tribunal ought to have granted
prospective income. On the aforesaid
grounds, it is contended that the appeal
filed by the appellant - AMTS deserves to be
dismissed and the Cross Objections filed by
the original claimants be allowed.
C/FA/657/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/12/2021
6. No other or further submissions, averments,
grounds and/or contentions are made by the
learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties.
7. We have perused the original record and
proceedings. Upon appreciation of the
Panchnama at Exh.26 as well as the FIR at
Exh.25, the manner in which the accident has
occurred and even considering the deposition
of the original claimants, wherein it is an
admitted that they were going on wrong side,
the findings arrived at by the Tribunal more
particularly in Paragraph 14 of the impugned
judgment and award is on correct
appreciation of the evidence on record and
no interference is called for.
8. Upon reappreciation of the evidence on
record, more particularly, pay slip which
indicates that the Tribunal has correctly
appreciated the said piece of evidence and
has correctly come to the conclusion that
the income of the deceased who was working
in ONGC was drawing salary of Rs.27,750/-
per month. The deceased was 55 years old on
the date of the accident and therefore, the
original claimants would be entitled
prospective income to the tune of 15%.
C/FA/657/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/12/2021
Following the judgment in the case of
National Insurance Company Limited Vs.
Pranay Sethi & Ors. reported in (2017) 16
SCC 680, the original claimants would be
entitled to multiplier of 9. Upon
reappreciation of the evidence on record and
following the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of the New India Assurance
Company Ltd. Vs. Somwati, reported in (2020)
9 SCC 644 and United India Insurance Company
Limited Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur,
reported in AIR 2020 SC 3076, the original
claimant no.1 - widow of the deceased and
minor Hiren would be entitled to spousal and
parental consortium to the tune of
Rs.40,000/- each. The original claimants
would also be entitled to Rs.15,000/-
towards loss of expectation of life and
Rs.15,000/- towards funeral charges.
9. Having come to the aforesaid conclusion, the
original claimants would be entitled to
compensation as under:-
Rs.27,750/- Income per month
+ Rs.4,163/- 15% prospective income
= Rs.31,913/- Income per month
- Rs.7,978/- One-fourth towards
personal expenses
C/FA/657/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/12/2021
= Rs.23,935/- Income per month
X 12 Yearly
= Rs.2,87,220/- Yearly income
X 9 Multiplier
= Rs.25,84,980/- Loss of dependency
+ Rs.15,000/- Loss of expectation of
life
+ Rs.40,000/- Spousal consortium
+ Rs.40,000/- Parental consortium
+ Rs.15,000/- Funeral charges
= Rs.26,94,980/- Compensation
- Rs.13,47,490/- Contributory negligence
50%
= Rs.13,47,490/- Total compensation
10. Thus, the original claimants would be
entitled to total compensation of
Rs.13,47,490/-. As the Tribunal has awarded
Rs.11,37,200/-, the original claimants would
be entitled to an additional amount of
Rs.2,10,290/- as additional compensation.
However, such additional compensation shall
bear only interest at the rate of 6% per
annum from the date of filing of the claim
petition till its realization. The original
opponents before the Tribunal are directed
to deposit the additional amount with
proportionate interest and cost within a
period of eight weeks from the date of
receipt of this judgment and order.
C/FA/657/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/12/2021
11. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the
appellant-AMTS is hereby dismissed and the
Cross Objections filed by the original
claimants is allowed to the aforesaid
extent. The impugned judgment and award
stands modified to the aforesaid extent.
However, there shall be no order as to costs
in this appeal. Registry is directed to
remit the record and proceedings back to the
Tribunal forthwith.
(R.M.CHHAYA,J)
(MAUNA M. BHATT,J)
Maulik
