Gujarat High Court
Faruk Ahmed Menda vs Sulaiman Muhammad Bhagedu on 19 January, 2021
Bench: R.M.Chhaya
C/FA/5429/2008 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 5429 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA sd/
=============================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see NO
the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the NO
judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as NO
to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any
order made thereunder ?
=============================================
FARUK AHMED MENDA & 1 other(s)
Versus
SULAIMAN MUHAMMAD BHAGEDU & 2 other(s)
=============================================
Appearance:
MR MA KHARADI(1032) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED(64) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
=============================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
Date : 19/01/2021
ORAL JUDGMENT
1.0. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and award dated 8.3.2006 passed in MACP No. 872 of 2001 by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi), Godhra, the appellants -
original claimants have preferred present appeal under Section 173 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
2.0. The following facts emerge from the record of the appeal.
That on 5.1.2002 at about 15.30 hours deceased Hasim was walking
C/FA/5429/2008 JUDGMENT
towards his uncle's house situated at Godhra city near Satpul
Jakatnaka, at that juncture Truck bearing Registration No.GJ17T
9363 being driven in rash and negligent manner came from the other
side and ran over the deceased who was 10 years old. An FIR was
lodged with the Godhra Town Police Station being CRI6 of 2001 at
Exh.25. The claimants preferred Claim Petition who are parents under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
2.1. The appellants - claimants claimed compensation of
Rs.3,00,000/. The appellants relied upon the oral evidence of
appellant no.1 at Exh.28, oral deposition of Dr. Shashikant Nagori
who performed the Postmortem of the deceased at Exh.31 and so
also documentary evidence such as copy of FIR at Exh.25, Panchnama
of scene of offence at Exh.26, Insurance Policy at Exh.27, PM Note at
Exh.32 and other relevant documents. After considering the evidence
on record, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,50,000/ under the
head of future loss of income, Rs.2000/ towards funeral expenses
and Rs.5000/ towards transportation charges and thus awarded total
compensation of Rs.1,52,500/ with 7.5% interest from the date of
claim petition till its realization. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with
the impugned judgment and award, the appellants have preferred the
present appeal.
3.0. Heard Mr. M.A. Kharadi, learned advocate for the appellants and
Mr.Vibhuti Nanavati, learned advocate for the Insurance Company.
Though served, nobody appears on behalf of the other respondents. I
have also perused the original record and proceedings of the case.
4.0. Mr. Kharadi, learned advocate for the appellants has
C/FA/5429/2008 JUDGMENT
contended that the Tribunal has wrongly considered the income at
Rs.15,000/ p.a, which should be enhanced. It was also contended
that the Tribunal has also erred in awarding meager amount as
funeral expenses and transportation charges, which deserves to be
enhanced. On the aforesaid two grounds, it was contended by Mr.
Kharadi, learned advocate for the appellants that the impugned
judgment and award be modified and appeal be allowed accordingly.
5.0. Per contra, Mr. Nanavati, learned advocate for the Insurance
Company has supported the impugned judgment and award passed by
the learned Tribunal. Mr. Nanavati submitted that the accident has
occurred on 5.1.2002 and considering the fact that deceased was only
10 years old, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the
deceased at Rs.15000/ p.a. According to Mr. Nanavati, learned
advocate for the Insurance Company no modification or alteration is
required in the impugned judgment and award and appeal being
merit less and deserves to be dismissed.
6.0. No other and further contention, submissions and grounds have
been raised by the learned advocates for the respective parties.
7.0. On considering the submission made and on reappreciation
of the evidence on record, it is matter of fact that 10 years old son is
lost by the parents. The Tribunal while determining the income has
considered only Rs.15000/ as his notional income. Even considering
the year of accident and upon reappreciation of the evidence on
record, the income of the deceased can safely be arrived at
Rs.24000/ p.a. Similarly, following the ratio laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company
C/FA/5429/2008 JUDGMENT
Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, the
appellants would be entitled to Rs.15000/ as compensation under
the head of loss of estate and Rs.15000/ as compensation under the
head of funeral expenses. Having come to the aforesaid conclusion,
the appellants would be entitled to compensation as under:
"Rs.24000/ p.a, income - ½ deducted towards personal expenses =
Rs.12000/ p.a. income x 15 multiplier would be come to Rs.
1,80,000/, Rs. 15000/ towards loss of estate and Rs.15000/
towards funeral expenses."
The appellants would be entitled to total compensation of
Rs..2,10,000/. As the Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,52,500/, the
appellants would be entitled to an additional amount of Rs.57,500/.
Insurance Company shall deposit the additional amount with 7.5%
interest from the date of Claim Petition till its realization.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. The
impugned judgment and order is modified to the aforesaid extent.
The insurance Company shall deposit the additional amount as
awarded within a period of three months from the date of receipt of
this judgment and order. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Registry is directed to send the original record and proceedings back
to the Tribunal forthwith.
sd/
(R.M.CHHAYA, J)
KAUSHIK J. RATHOD
