Gujarat High Court
New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Salemamad Bhachu Sameja on 22 February, 2021
Bench: R.M.Chhaya
C/FA/1569/2008 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1569 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
==========================================================
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 ?
==========================================================
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD
Versus
SALEMAMAD BHACHU SAMEJA & 5 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SUNIL B PARIKH(582) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED(64) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,4,5,6
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
Date : 22/02/2021
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied by the
judgment and award dated 27.8.2007 passed by
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.),
Kutch in MACP No.433 of 2006, the appellant -
C/FA/1569/2008 JUDGMENT
insurance Company has preferred this appeal
under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").
2. Following facts emerge from the record of the
appeal:
That, the accident occurred on 12.7.2006 on
Asambia Bidada Road, at about 28 kms. from
Mandvi in KutchBhuj. Record indicates that
the deceased was working as Cleaner in a truck
bearing registration no. GQY - 4026. It is the
case the respondents original claimants that
the driver of the truck lost control over the
steering and the truck turnedturtle. The
deceased sustained serious injuries and
succumbed to the same. The record indicates
that the deceased died during use of the above
truck. The respondents original claimants
filed a claim petition under Section 163A of
the Act and prayed for compensation of
Rs.4,56,200/. It was the case of the
respondents original claimants that the
deceased was earning Rs.3,000/ per month as
salary and Rs.50/ towards daily Bhattha. It
was the case of the respondents original
claimants that in all the deceased was earning
Rs.4,500/ per month. One of the claimants
came to be examined at Exh.16 and the
respondents original claimants also relied
C/FA/1569/2008 JUDGMENT
upon the documentary evidences, such as, FIR
Exh.22, copy of the Panchnama of scene of
occurrence Exh.23, chargesheet Exh.24, copy
of inquest Panchnama Exh.25, postmortem report
Exh.26, insurance policy Exh.27 and copy of
income at Mark 17/7. The Tribunal, after
appreciating the evidence on record, partly
allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum
of Rs.4,09,500/ with 9% interest from the
date of claim petition till its realization
and being aggrieved by the same, the present
appeal is filed.
3. Heard Mr. Sunil B. Parikh, learned advocate
for the appellant and Mr. Hiren Modi, learned
advocate for the respondents original
claimants. Though served, no one appears for
the other respondents.
4. Mr. Sunil B. Parikh, learned advocate for the
appellant has taken this Court through the
factual matrix arising out of this appeal and
contended that the Tribunal has committed an
obvious error in considering the income of the
deceased. Mr. Parikh contended that the
Tribunal, while considering the application
for compensation under Section 163A of the
Act, has not put forward structured formula
and has committed an error in considering the
income of the deceased at Rs.40,000/ per
C/FA/1569/2008 JUDGMENT
annum and has also applied wrong multiplier.
On the aforesaid grounds, Mr. Parikh, learned
advocate for the appellant contended that the
appeal may be allowed.
5. Per contra, Mr. Hiren Modi, learned advocate
for the respondents original claimants has
supported the impugned judgment and award.
According to Mr. Modi, the Tribunal has
committed no error and has awarded just
compensation. Mr. Modi therefore submitted
that the appeal, being meritless, deserves to
be dismissed.
6. No other or further submissions, grounds
and/or contentions are made by the learned
advocates appearing for the respective
parties.
7. At the outset, it deserves to be noted that
the appeal is restricted only for
Rs.1,50,000/, whereas, the Tribunal has
awarded Rs.4,09,500/. It is no doubt true
that the respondents original claimants had
preferred a claim petition under Section 163A
of the Act. The Tribunal has considered the
fact that the deceased was working as a
cleaner and this Court also finds that in
Paragraph 14 of the impugned judgment and
award, the respondents original claimants
C/FA/1569/2008 JUDGMENT
restricted their claim on the basis of yearly
income of Rs.40,000/. It clearly appears that
the Tribunal has committed no error in
awarding a sum of Rs.4,09,500/ and in fact,
it is almost on the basis of the structured
formula.
8. Upon reappreciation of the evidence on record,
this Court finds that what has been awarded by
the Tribunal is just compensation, which does
not require to be interfered with by this
Court in its appellate jurisdiction. In
addition to this, the insurance Company has
restricted this appeal only for Rs.1,50,000/.
Even on ground of the claim raised by the
appellant, no interference is called for and
in facts of this case therefore, the appeal is
not entertained and the same is dismissed.
However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Registry is directed to send the original
record and proceedings back to the Tribunal
forthwith.
(R.M.CHHAYA, J)
MRP
