Gujarat High Court
Heirs Of Amit Govindbhai Barot vs Ashokbhai Bhimashankar Gaekwad on 19 January, 2021
Bench: R.M.Chhaya
C/FA/460/2007 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 460 of 2007
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 ?
==========================================================
HEIRS OF AMIT GOVINDBHAI BAROT
Versus
ASHOKBHAI BHIMASHANKAR GAEKWAD & 2 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR D C SEJPAL(1322) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,1.1,1.2
NOTICE SERVED(4) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
MR MAULIK J SHELAT(2500) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
Date : 19/01/2021
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Being aggrieved by and feeling dissatisfied
with the judgment and order dated 23.1.2006
passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(Aux.), Ahmedabad in MACP no.1252 of 2003, the
original claimants have preferred this appeal
C/FA/460/2007 JUDGMENT
under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988.
2. Following noteworthy facts emerge from the
record of the appeal:
That, the accident occurred on 8.6.2003. It is
the case of the original claimants that his
unmarried son Amit, aged 21 years, was on
his way from Naroda to Giyod with an intention
to offer prayers at the temple of their family
goddess near Village Chhala. The record
indicates that while the deceased - Amit was
passing through Village Chhala, a truck
bearing registration no. GJ9 - V7889 came
from the opposite side and collided with the
son of the appellants. As per the record, the
deceased Amit sustained multiple serious
injuries and succumbed on the spot. An FIR was
lodged with the jurisdictional Police Station
and the original claimants filed the claim
petition under Section 166 of the Act and
claimed compensation of Rs.9,00,000/. It was
the case of the appellants that the deceased -
Amit was working as Manager in Kartik
Corporation and Sagar Corporation and was also
earning a salary of Rs.15,000/ per month. The
appellant no.1 - Govindbhai Pratapbhai Barot
was examined at Exh.33 and the appellants also
relied upon the documentary evidence, such as,
C/FA/460/2007 JUDGMENT
FIR registered at Kalol Police Station at
Exh.27, Panchnama at Exh.28, inquest Panchnama
at Exh.29, postmortem report at Exh.30, Mr.
Ashok Bhimashankar was examined at Exh.49 who
happens to be the driver of the truck involved
in the accident. Considering the evidence on
record, both oral and documentary as well as
balance sheet at Mark 35/2 and other salary
vouchers at Exh.40, the Tribunal came to the
conclusion that the appellants have not been
able to prove that the deceased Amit was just
21 years old and who has studied only upto
Std.12 was earning Rs.15,000/ per month and
upon appreciation of the evidence on record,
determined the income at Rs.1,500/ per month.
Considering the dependency to the extent of
twothird, the Tribunal was pleased to award
compensation of Rs.1,26,000/ under the head
of future loss of income and further awarded
an amount of Rs.15,000/ for the loss of
future expectancy of life and awarded
Rs.2,000/ as funeral expenses and thus,
awarded Rs.1,43,000/ as compensation with
interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the
date of filing the claim petition till its
realization and being aggrieved by the same,
the present appeal is filed.
3. As recorded by the Tribunal, after the
evidence was recorded, the appellants did make
C/FA/460/2007 JUDGMENT
an attempt to enhance the claim from
Rs.9,00,000/ to Rs.18,00,000/, which came to
be dismissed. However, the said aspect has not
been challenged by the appellants and
therefore, the claim before the Tribunal rest
at Rs.9,00,000/.
4. Heard Mr. Divyesh Sejpal, learned advocate for
the appellants and Mr. Maulik J. Shelat,
learned advocate for the insurance Company.
Though served, no one appears for the
respondents no.1 and 2.
5. Mr. Divyesh Sejpal, learned advocate for the
appellants candidly submitted that when the
matter came to be admitted by this Court vide
order dated 8.5.2007, the other contentions
which were raised by way of grounds in this
appeal were abandoned and the appeal was only
pursued for higher rate of interest.
6. However, according to Mr. Sejpal, Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, being a benevolent
legislation apart from the other contentions,
the appellants may be given benefit of
constitutional judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of National Insurance
Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.
reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and the award be
modified and enhanced. Mr. Sejpal also relied
C/FA/460/2007 JUDGMENT
upon the salary certificate at Exh.40 and
contended that Kartik Corporation was not the
sole proprietory concern and it has also other
partners and the Tribunal has therefore
committed an error in disbelieving the same.
Relying upon the ratio laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi
(supra), Mr. Sejpal contended that the
appellants original claimants would be
entitled to 40% prospective income and the
applicable multiplier would be 18 as the
deceased Amit was 21 years old on the date of
the accident. Mr. Sejpal further contended
that the Tribunal has also awarded a meager
amount of Rs.15,000/ under the head of loss
of future expectancy of life and Rs.2,000/
under the head of funeral expenses, which also
may be enhanced as per the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi
(supra). On the aforesaid grounds, it was
therefore submitted that the appeal be
permitted to be pursued on merits on other
grounds than only on interest. Lastly, Mr.
Sejpal contended that the accident has
occurred on 8.6.2003 and even as per the bank
rates applicable on the date of the accident,
the appellants original claimants would be
entitled to at least interest at the rate of
10% per annum. On the aforesaid grounds, it
was therefore contended that the appeal may be
C/FA/460/2007 JUDGMENT
allowed and the impugned judgment and award be
modified accordingly.
7. Per contra, Mr. Shelat, learned advocate for
the insurance Company has opposed the appeal.
Mr. Shelat contended that having given up the
other contentions, the appellants now, at the
final hearing stage, cannot be permitted to
contend that the appellants may be given
benefit of the latest judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court. It is contended that the
Tribunal has rightly awarded interest at the
rate of 6% per annum, which does not require
any alteration or modification. It is
therefore contended that the appeal, being
meritless, deserves to be dismissed.
8. No other or further submissions, grounds
and/or contentions are made by the learned
advocates appearing for the respective
parties.
9. Having considered the submissions made and on
perusal of the original record and proceedings
as well as the order dated 8.5.2007 passed by
this Court, it is no doubt true that the
appellants had given up all the contentions,
except the interest portion and the appeal was
restricted only to enhancement of interest. If
it would have been an ordinary Civil Appeal,
C/FA/460/2007 JUDGMENT
the Court would not have permitted the
appellants to argue further and would have
considered only the aspect of enhancement of
interest. However, the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 being a benevolent legislation, just
compensation is the right of the claimants.
Keeping the said aspect in mind, this Court is
of the opinion that the appellants be
permitted to argue on merits and raise other
contentions also. The Motor Vehicles Act,
1988, being a benevolent legislation, in
peculiar facts of this appeal, the appellants-
original claimants are old parents who have
lost their only son aged 21 years and this
order is passed under such peculiar facts and
circumstances.
10. Having come to the aforesaid conclusion, it
deserves to be noted that except bare word and
salary slip at Exh.40 as well as the balance
sheet at Mark 35/2, there is no evidence on
record to show that the deceased - Amit was
just 21 years old and educated only upto
Std.12, could earn only Rs.15,000/ per month.
Even applying the standard of minimum wages
and in absence of any evidence on record, the
Tribunal has committed no error in determining
the income of the deceased at Rs.1,500/ per
month.
C/FA/460/2007 JUDGMENT
11. However, applying the ratio laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi
(supra), as the deceased was 21 years old and
a Bachelor, the appellants would be entitled
to prospective income by way of increase in
income to the tune of 40%. Similarly, as the
deceased Amit was a Bachelor, 50% of the total
income will have to be deducted towards
personal expenses. However, considering the
age and the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi
(supra), applicable multiplier would be 18.
Having come to the aforesaid conclusion, the
appellants would be entitled to compensation
under the head of loss of future income as
under:
Rs.1,500/ per month + 40% prospective income=
Rs.2,100/ per month less 50% towards personal
expenses Rs.1,050/ per month. So per year the
amount would be Rs.12,600/ x 18=
Rs.2,26,800/. Over and above the same, the
appellants would be entitled to Rs.15,000/ as
the conventional compensation under the head
of loss to estate and further amount of
Rs.15,000/ towards funeral expenses and thus,
the appellants would be entitled to total
compensation of Rs.2,56,800/.
C/FA/460/2007 JUDGMENT
12. As far as interest is concerned, this Court is
of the opinion that the appropriate interest
would be 8% per annum instead of 6% per annum.
However, as the accident is of year 2003, the
appellants would be entitled to enhance the
interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the
enhanced amount i.e. the amount which is
enhanced by this Court in this appeal.
13. Consequently, the appellants would be entitled
to total compensation of Rs.2,56,800/ and as
the Tribunal has already awarded an amount of
Rs.1,43,000/, the appellants would be
entitled to additional compensation of
Rs.1,13,800/. Over and above this, the
appellants would be entitled to interest at
the rate of 6% per annum on Rs.1,43,000/ from
the date of filing of the claim petition till
its realization and 8% interest per annum on
Rs.1,13,800/ from the date of filing of the
claim petition till its realization. The
impugned award stands modified only to the
aforesaid extent. The insurance Company shall
deposit the additional/enhanced amount along
with the interest as provided in this judgment
within a period of three months from the date
of receipt of this judgment.
14. The appeal is partly allowed. However, there
shall be no order as to costs. Registry is
C/FA/460/2007 JUDGMENT
directed send the original record and
proceedings back to the Tribunal forthwith.
(R.M.CHHAYA, J)
MRP
