Gujarat High Court
National Insurance Company ... vs Rajeshbhai @ Rajendrabhai ... on 21 December, 2021
Bench: R.M.Chhaya
C/FA/2868/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/12/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2868 of 2010
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 5 of 2011
In
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2868 of 2010
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA sd/-
and
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT sd/-
==============================================================
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 of NO
the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of NO
law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of
India or any order made thereunder ?
==============================================================
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
Versus
RAJESHBHAI @ RAJENDRABHAI SHAKRABHAI PANCHAL & 2
other(s)
=============================================================
Appearance:
MR MAULIK J SHELAT(2500) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
for the Defendant(s) No. 3
MR PARESH M DARJI(3700) for the Defendant(s) No.
1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5
RULE SERVED(64) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
==============================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
and
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT
Date : 21/12/2021
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA)
1.0. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and award dated 18.03.2010 passed in MACP No.1094
of 2007 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi), City Civil
C/FA/2868/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/12/2021
Court No.15, Ahmedabad, the Insurance Company has preferred
this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
(hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). The original claimants have
also filed Cross Objection for enhancement of the compensation.
2.0. Following facts emerges from the record of this appeal;
2.1. That the accident took place on 18.09.2007 at about 9.
hours wherein deceased Rajubhai @ Rajendrabhai was driving
the Eterno No.GJ-01-FL-2513 who was serving in Pooja
Industries, situated at Dudheshwar, Ahmedabad met with the
accident near Ajanta Commercial Centre on Ashram Road. The
record indicates that Maxicab Jeep No. GJ-18-X-677 came from
opposite direction being driving in rash and negligent manner,
rushed on the wrong side and dashed with the Eterno, because
of which, deceased was thrown away on the road and had
sustained serious injuries. The record indicates that he was alive
for about 36 hours. An FIR was lodged with the jurisdictional
police station at Exh. 34 and the claim petition filed under
Section 166 of the Act and claiming compensation of Rs.25
lakhs. It was the case of the claimants that deceased was 40
years on the date of accident and was doing business in the
name Pooja Industries and was earning Rs.1,50,000/- per
annum. The claimants also relied upon the documentary
evidence such as FIR at Exh.34, panchnama at Exh.35, Inquest
Panchnama at Exh. 36, PM report at Exh.37, School leaving
certificate at Exh.38, Birth Certificate of Minor Keyur at Exh.39,
Birth Certificate of Minor Pooja at Exh.40, copy of ration card at
Exh.41 and Income Tax Return at Exh.42. The Tribunal after
appreciating the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that
C/FA/2868/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/12/2021
the driver of Maxicab Jeep was solely negligent for the accident.
As far as quantum is concerned, the Tribunal assessed the
income of the deceased at Rs.9500/- after considering
prospective income, applying multiplier 15, awarded a sum of
Rs.16,92,000/- as compensation under the future dependency
benefits and also further awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- for loss
of expectancy of life and Rs.15000/- towards consortium and
Rs.5000/- towards funeral charges. Thus, awarded total
compensation of Rs.17,32,000/- with7.5% interest from the date
of filing of claim petition till its realization.
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and award, the present appellant - Insurance
Company has preferred this appeal and original claimants have
preferred Cross Objection.
3.0. Heard Mr. Maulik Shelat, learned advocate for the
appellant- Insurance Company and Mr. Paresh Darji, learned
advocate for the original claimants. We have also perused the
original record and proceedings of the case. Both the learned
advocates for the respective parties have candidly submitted that
even if the evidence on record is re-appreciated by this Court,
the impugned judgment and award of Rs.17,47,000/- being just,
proper and adequate compensation, no interference is called for.
Learned counsel for the respective parties further submitted that
considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi &
ors reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, Sarla Verma and ors. vs.
Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. reported in (2009) 6 SCC
121, Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Nanu Ral Alias
Chuhur Ram & Ors reported in (2018)18 SCC 130, United India
C/FA/2868/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/12/2021
Insurance Company Limited vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur
reported in AIR 2020 SC 3076 and New India Assurance
Company Limited vs. Somwati and Ors reported in (2020) 9 SCC
644 ultimately total compensation would remains almost same
and therefore, appeal as well as cross objection are disposed of.
4.0. We have examined original record and proceedings as well
as observations made by the Tribunal. Even on reappreciation of
evidence on record as a whole, compensation of Rs.17,47,000/-
awarded by the Tribunal is just, proper and adequate
compensation, no interference or modification is required. Thus,
appeal as well as cross objection are dismissed. However, there
shall be no order as to costs. Registry is directed to transmit
back the Record and Proceedings of the case to the concerned
Tribunal forthwith.
sd/-
(R.M.CHHAYA,J)
sd/-
(MAUNA M. BHATT,J)
KAUSHIK J. RATHOD
