Gujarat High Court

Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd vs Kanubhai Natwarbhai Patel on 20 February, 2021

Bench: Vaibhavi D. Nanavati

        C/FA/482/2020                                     JUDGMENT




         IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                        R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 482 of 2020

                                With
           CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2020
                 In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 482 of 2020
                                With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR WITHDRAWAL/DISBURSEMENT OF AMOUNT)
                            NO. 2 of 2020
                 In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 482 of 2020

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI

==========================================================

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 ?

==========================================================
                RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD
                              Versus
                    KANUBHAI NATWARBHAI PATEL
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RATHIN P RAVAL(5013) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
RULE SERVED(64) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
SERVED BY AFFIX. (R)(67) for the Defendant(s) No. 4
==========================================================

 CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI

                               Date : 20/02/2021

                              ORAL JUDGMENT

C/FA/482/2020 JUDGMENT

1. This First Appeal is filed by the appellant

- Insurance Company under Section 173 of the

Motor Vehicle Act challenging the judgment

and award dated 13.9.2019 passed by the

learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Aux.),

& 5th Additional District Court, Ahmedabad

(Rural) at Mirzapur in Motor Accident Claim

Petition No.288 of 2009.

2. It is the case of the on 23.11.2008, the

deceased Hiralben was travelling in Auto

Rickshaw bearing No.GJ1BU4382 and the

driver of the said Auto Rickshaw was driving

in full speed and in rash and negligence

manner, and at about 7.30 a.m. when they were

passing opposite to the Sola High Court Road,

at that time, as the driver suddenly applied

break, the said Rickshaw turned turtle and

the deceased Hiralben came under the said

Rickshaw and died. The complaint was lodged

in Sola High Court Police Station vide First

C/FA/482/2020 JUDGMENT

CR No.I391/2008. It is further submitted in

the claim petition that at the time of

accident, age of deceased Hiralben was 20

years and she was working with Triokka

Pharmaceutical Company, and thereby she

earned Rs.4,500/ p.m. Therefore, the

petitioner claimed the amount of

Rs.5,00,000/ under different Heads as

compensation with interest at the rate of 12%

from the respondents.

3. Heard Mr.Rathin P. Raval, learned advocate

for the appellant - Insurance Company and

Mr.Nishit A. Bhalodi, learned advocate for

the respondents No.1 and 2.

4. Mr.Rathin P. Raval, learned advocate for

the appellant - Insurance Company has

submitted that the judgment and award passed

by the Tribunal is improper, unjust and

against the provisions of law. He has

submitted that the driver of the rickshaw did

not have valid license to drive the transport

C/FA/482/2020 JUDGMENT

vehicle on the date of accident. He has

submitted that the appellant Insurance

Company has no liability as there was no

permit of rickshaw. He has submitted that

learned Tribunal has taken prospective income

as 50% which should be 40% as per ratio laid

down by the Apex Court in the case of

National Insurance Company Ltd., vs. Pranay

Sethi and Ors., reported in (2017) 16 SCC

680. He has submitted that learned Tribunal

has taken conventional amount of Rs.91,000/

instead of Rs.70,000/.

5. He has further submitted that the learned

Tribunal has erred in awarding 9% interest.

It is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of Dharampal and Ors. VS.

Respondent: U.P. State Road Transport

Corporation has held that the award on

interest should be in consonance with the

bank rates prevailing at the time of

declaration of the award. Therefore the

C/FA/482/2020 JUDGMENT

prevailing bank rates of around 67% could

only be awarded in the present matter.

Actual income Rs.3,000/

Prospective income Rs.4200 (40%)

Deduction of amount spent by the deceased on

herself Rs.2100/ (1/2)

Future loss per annum :

Rs.2100 x 12 = 25,200/

Multiplier of 18

Future loss of Rs.4,53,600/

Conventional amount of Rs.70,000/

Total compensation Rs.5,23,600/

Interest at the rate of 9%

Lastly, he has submitted to consider the

multiplier of 18 as per the decision in the

case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Ors., vs.

Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr.,

reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 when sufficient

evidence were produced on record. He,

therefore, submitted that the award requires

to be modified as prayed for and total

C/FA/482/2020 JUDGMENT

compensation be considered from Rs.5,77,000/

(awarded by the Tribunal) to Rs.5,23,600/

reducing to Rs.53,400/.

6. Mr.Nishit A. Bhalodi, learned advocate for

the respondents No.1 and 2 - original

claimants has submitted that the judgment and

award passed by the learned Motor Accident

Claim Tribunal (Aux.), & 5th Additional

District Court, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur

is just and proper and do not require any

interference. He submitted that the Tribunal

has correctly taken the income as also

applied the correct multiplier and the same

requires no interference.

7. I have heard learned advocates for the

respective parties at length. I have perused

the averments made in the memo of appeal. The

original claimants produced sufficient

evidence before the Tribunal regarding income

and age of the deceased, which is just and

proper. The choice of the multiplier is

C/FA/482/2020 JUDGMENT

determined by the age of the claimant. The

multiplier method is logically sound and

legally well established. Hence this Court is

inclined to accept the multiplier of 18 as

per the decision in the case of Sarla Verma

(Smt.) and Ors., vs. Delhi Transport

Corporation and Anr., reported in (2009) 6

SCC 121. Keeping that in mind, this Court is

of the view that multiplier of 18 is just and

proper.

8. Considering the facts of the case judgment

and award dated 13.9.2019 passed by the

learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Aux.),

& 5th Additional District Court, Ahmedabad

(Rural) at Mirzapur in Motor Accident Claim

Petition No.288 of 2009 is modified to the

extent that the prospective income be

considered 40% of the income and actual

income of Rs.3,000/ p.m. is accepted. There

is no error committed by the learned Tribunal

in arriving at Rs.3,000/ p.m. as actual

C/FA/482/2020 JUDGMENT

income. Table is produced hereinbelow for

sake of convenience. Hence the award comes

to;

Compensation As per Award Calculation under in First challenge Appeal (A) Future Loss

(i) Actual Income 3000 3000

(ii) Prospective Income 4500 (50%) 4200 (40%)

(iii) Deduction of amount 2250(1/2) 2100(1/2) spent by the decd. on himself

(iv) Future Loss Per Annum 2250 x 12 = 2100 x 12 = 27000 25200

(A) Future Loss 4,86,000 4,53,600 (B) Conventional Amount 91,000 70,000 Total Compensation 5,77,000 5,23,600 Interest 9% 9%

Total amount of the award comes to

Rs.5,23,600. The learned Tribunal has passed

the award of Rs.5,77,000/. The present

respondents are therefore entitled to

Rs.5,23,000/ as amount of compensation along

with 9% from the date of application filed

before the Tribunal. The appellant is

directed to deposit the amount of

compensation alongwith interest within a

C/FA/482/2020 JUDGMENT

period of six weeks from the date of receipt

of copy of this judgment.