Gujarat High Court
New India Assurance Company Ltd vs Jorsing Magansingh Chauhan on 23 February, 2021
Bench: Vaibhavi D. Nanavati
C/FA/2573/2020 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2573 of 2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2020
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2573 of 2020
================================================================
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD
Versus
JORSING MAGANSINGH CHAUHAN
================================================================
Appearance:
MR MAULIK J SHELAT(2500) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR KK THAKKAR(2834) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
NOTICE NOT RECD BACK(3) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
Date : 23/02/2021
ORAL ORDER
1. The present appeal is filed under the provisions of Section 173 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the impugned judgment and
award dated 26.09.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(Aux), 6th Additional District Court, Banaskantha at Palanpur in MACP
No.194 of 2015.
2. Learned advocate Mr.Maulik Shelat appearing for the appellant has
submitted that the present appeal is filed mainly being aggrieved by the
impugned judgment and award dated 26.09.2019 by the tribunal by
granting Rs.50,000/- towards the loss of consortium and Rs.40,000/- for
filial consortium to the claimants who happens to be the parents of
deceased.
3. Per contra, learned advocate Mr.KK Thakkar appearing for the
C/FA/2573/2020 ORDER
opponent nos.1 and 2 has submitted that the age of the deceased was 16
years at the time of accident and therefore, the multiplier of 15 is
erroneously applied by the learned tribunal. He has submitted that as per
the judgment in the case of Sarla Varma V/s. Delhi Transport
Corporation, since the deceased was 16 years of age, the multiplier of 18
would be applicable.
4. Learned advocate Mr.Maulik Shelat for the appellant is unable to
contradict the said contentions raised by the learned advocate Mr.KK
Thakkar for the opponent nos.1 and 2.
5. Table is produced hereinbelow for the sake of convenience. Hence
the award comes to:-
Different heads Tribunal Insurance Claimant
calculation Company calculation
Calculation
Annual 25,200/- 25,200/- 25,200/-
dependency
Future loss of 3,78,000/- 4,53,600/- 4,53,600/-
income
Loss of 50,000/- Nil Nil
consortium
Filial consortium 40,000/- Nil Nil
Loss to Estate 15,000/- 15,000/- 15,000/-
Funeral Expenses 15,000/- 15,000/- 15,000/-
Total Award 4,98,000/- 4,83,600/- 4,83,600/-
6. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective
parties.
7. It appears that the age of deceased minor was about 16 years at the
C/FA/2573/2020 ORDER
time of accident than appropriate multiplier would be 18 and not 15 as
applied by the tribunal. The tribunal has wrongly applied 15 multiplier
relying upon 2nd schedule of MV Act as claim petition is filed under
Section 166 and not under Section 163-A of MV Act.
8. Even if the submissions of Insurance Company not to grant any
consortium amount to claimants being parents and submissions of
claimants to apply 18 multiplier are accepted than difference in award
amount comes to Rs.14,400/- which is negligible and this Court would
not like to interfere with the awarded amount.
9. The award passed by the the tribunal does not require interference
as the difference in award amount comes to Rs.14,400/-, which is
negligible.
10. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. The award passed by
the tribunal is confirmed. Notice is discharged.
11. In view of the dismissal of the first appeal, Civil Application does
not survive and the same is disposed of accordingly. Notice is discharge.
(VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI,J)
ABHISHEK
