Gujarat High Court
Neeruben Jaganbhai Gavit vs Satyamsingh Gurmelsing Sardar on 29 November, 2021
Bench: R.M.Chhaya
C/FA/2460/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/11/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2460 of 2010
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
and
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT
==========================================================
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 ?
==========================================================
NEERUBEN JAGANBHAI GAVIT & 4 other(s)
Versus
SATYAMSINGH GURMELSING SARDAR & 2 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR AMIT N PATEL(2749) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
for the Defendant(s) No. 2
MR ANAL S SHAH(3988) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED(64) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
RULE UNSERVED(68) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
and
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT
Date : 29/11/2021
Page 1 of 6
Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 05:32:57 IST 2022
C/FA/2460/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/11/2021
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT)
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned
judgement and award dated 20.7.2009 passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Valsad in MACP No.36/2003,
the appellants - original claimants have preferred present
appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Act
for short).
2. The following facts emerge from the record of this
appeal:
2.1. Deceased - Jaganbhai Nagarjibhai Gavit on 9.4.2002 at
5:00 p.m. was going from Bhilad to Vapi on his suzuki
motorcycle bearing registration No.GJ-15-P-9507. He was
driving on the left side of the road following the traffic rules.
When he reached near Mohangam Crossing, at that time, on
way to Valvad at National Highway No.8, a truck bearing
registration No. MP-23-DA-6394 came with full speed in rash
and negligent manner and dashed with the motorcycle of the
deceased. This resulted into serious injuries and Deceased -
Jaganbhai Nagarjibhai Gavit succumbed to the injuries. An
FIR was lodged against respondent No.1 at Umargam Police
Station.
2.2. Pursuant to the said accident the appellants - original
claimants had filed MACP No.36 of 2003 under Section 166 of
the Act and claimed compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- with cost
and interest. The Tribunal after hearing and upon
consideration of oral and documentary evidence available on
record, awarded the total compensation of Rs.5,49,000/- under
C/FA/2460/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/11/2021
different heads with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of the
petition till realization thereof along with proportionate costs.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, the
appellants - original claimants have preferred present appeal.
4. We have heard Mr. Amit Patel, learned advocate for the
appellants - original claimants and Mr. Anal Shah, learned
advocate for Respondent N0.3 - Insurance Company. As the
liability is not denied, presence of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 is
not necessary for deciding the present appeal and with the
consent of learned advocates appearing for the parties, the
appeal is taken up for final disposal forthwith.
5. Mr. Amit Patel, learned advocate for the appellants -
original claimants has made following submissions:
5.1. That the Tribunal has erred in not considering the correct
income of the deceased as he was serving as Talati-cum-Mantri
and was earning the salary of Rs.7,513/- p.m. at the time of
accident. There is a documentary evidence which is exhibited
at Exh.41 and 42 in the form of salary certificate. He further
contended that if the gratuity, provident fund and other
benefits are considered as per the service rules, the deceased
would have earned more amount at the time of his retirement.
He thus submitted to consider the income of the deceased at
Rs.10,930/- p.m.
5.2. It is further contended that funeral expenses, loss of
estate and consortium in consonance with the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and
C/FA/2460/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/11/2021
Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors. reported in (2009)
6 SCC 121. He thus contended to allow the appeal as prayed
for.
6. Per contra, Mr.Anal Shah, learned advocate for
Respondent N0.3 - Insurance Company submitted that the
Tribunal has correctly considered the oral and documentary
evidence to arrive at just compensation. Accordingly, it was
contended by learned advocate for the respondent - Insurance
company that the appeal being meritless, deserves to be
dismissed.
7. No other and further submissions/contentions have been
made by the learned advocates for the respective parties.
8. We have considered the submission made by the learned
advocates for the respective parties and also perused the record
and proceedings. Upon re-appreciation of the evidence, it is
noticed that gross total salary of deceased (Exhibited at Exh.
41 and 42) at the time of accident was Rs.7513/-p.m. Rs. 40
was deducted towards professional tax and Rs.75 towards T.A.
to be deducted. Therefore, net income of the deceased was
Rs.7398/-p.m. As the deceased was aged 44 years, the
appellants would be entitled to future prospective income at
30% as per the Hon'ble Apex Court decision in the case of
National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors.
reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. Having come to the aforesaid
conclusion, therefore, the appellants would be entitled to
compensation under the head of future loss of income as
under:
C/FA/2460/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/11/2021
"Rs.7398/- p.m. (income) + Rs. 2219/- (30% Future Prospective
income) = Rs.9617/- - 2404/- (1/4th of Personal expenses) =
Rs.7213/- x 12 (pa) = Rs.86556/- x 14 (Multiplier as the age of
the deceased was 44 years) = Rs.12,11,784/-."
9. Following the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur v. United India
Insurance Co. Ltd., the appellants would also be entitled to
parental consortium for two minor children to the extent of
Rs.40,000/- each and Rs. 40,000/- will be granted to widow.
Therefore, total consortium would come to (Rs. 40,000/- x3) =
Rs.1,20,000/-. Over and above the same, the appellants would
be entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and
Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses.
10. Having come to the aforesaid conclusion, therefore, the
appellants would be entitled to total compensation as under:
Particulars Amount (Rs.)
Future loss of income 12,11,784/-
Loss of consortium and 1,20,000/-
Parental consortium
Loss of Estate 15,000/-
Funeral expenses 15,000/-
Total 13,61,784/-
11. Thus, the appellants - claimants would be entitled to
total compensation of Rs.13,61,784/-. As the Tribunal has
awarded an amount of Rs.5,49,000/-, the respondent -
Insurance Company shall deposit the additional amount of
Rs.8,12,784/- with 8% interest and proportionate costs from
C/FA/2460/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/11/2021
date of filing of the claim petition till its realization with the
Tribunal within a period of 8 weeks from the receipt of the
order. The impugned judgement and award passed by the
Tribunal is modified to the aforesaid extent. Appeal is thus,
partly allowed. The rest of the judgment and award passed by
the learned Tribunal has remained unaltered. Registry is
directed to transmit back the Record and Proceedings of the
case to the concerned Tribunal forthwith. However, there shall
be no order as to costs.
(R.M.CHHAYA,J)
(MAUNA M. BHATT,J)
NAIR SMITA V.
