Gujarat High Court
Puriben Ranabhai Nandaniya vs Gujarat State Road Transport ... on 29 November, 2021
Bench: R.M.Chhaya
C/FA/1481/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/11/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1481 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 ?
===============================================================
PURIBEN RANABHAI NANDANIYA & 4 other(s)
Versus
GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION & 2 other(s)
===============================================================
Appearance:
MR AMAR D MITHANI(484) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
MR GC MAZMUDAR(1193) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
MR HG MAZMUDAR(1194) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
MRS VASAVDATTA BHATT(193) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED(64) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
===============================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
and
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT
Date : 29/11/2021
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT)
C/FA/1481/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/11/2021
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgement and award dated 31.8.2009 passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi), Fast Track Court No.4,
Ahmedabad (Rural) in MACP No.456/1993, 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. On or about 7.11.1992, the deceased Shri Ranabhai
Bhojabhai Nandaniya was going from his service place Pilvai to
Bhavnagar to meet his family by S.T. Bus No.GJ-1-2149. When
the bus reached near Khadol village Board, the offending
Luxury Bus No. GJ-4-T-3088 came in with full speed in rash
and negligent manner which resulted in head on collusion and
on account of the said accident, the deceased Shri Ranabhai
Bhojabhai Nandaniya and other passengers from both the
vehicles sustained fatal injuries and ultimately, the deceased
died.
2.2. Pursuant to the said accident, the appellants herein
(original claimants) had filed MACP No. 456 of 1993 under
Section 166 of the Act and claimed compensation of
Rs.21,16,886/- with interest. The Tribunal after hearing the
parties and upon consideration of oral and documentary
evidence awarded the total compensation to the tune of
Rs.7,70,000/- with 9% p.a. interest from the date of the
petition till realization thereof along with proportionate costs.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, the
C/FA/1481/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/11/2021
appellants - original claimants have preferred present appeal.
4. We have heard Mr. Amar Mithani, learned advocate for
the appellants - original claimants, Mrs. Vasavdatta Bhatt,
learned advocate for Respondent No.1 - GSRT and Mr. H.G.
Mazmudar, learned advocate for Respondent N0.3 - Insurance
Company. As respondent No.2 is the owner of the Luxury Bus
the liability is not denied, presence of respondent No.2 is not
essential 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. Amar Mithani, learned advocate for the appellants -
original claimants has made following submissions:
5.1. That the Tribunal has erred in not considering the
evidence on record in relation to the income of the deceased.
The deceased was serving as the Assistant Director of
Agriculture and his gross salary for the year 1992 was
Rs.9733/- p.m. Therefore, the income of the deceased taken
by Tribunal at Rs.7500/- is erroneous.
5.2. That the deduction of the personal expenses to the extent
of 1/4th is erroneous as the number of dependents are five. In
support of his submission, he relied on the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma and Ors. v.
Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. reported in 2009 ACJ
1298.
5.3. That relying upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited
C/FA/1481/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/11/2021
v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur reported in AIR 2020 SC
3076, it was contended that the claimants would be entitled to
filial and parental consortium.
5.4. It is further contended that the future prospects as well
as the loss of future income has not been correctly considered
by the Tribunal. It is also further contended that as per the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National
Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Ors. reported
in (2017) 16 SCC 680 the income for conventional has not
been considered properly by the Tribunal. Relying upon
various oral and documentary evidence he submitted that the
appeal may be allowed.
6. Per contra, Mr. H.G. Mazmudar, learned advocate for
Respondent N0.3 - Insurance Company as well as
Mrs.Vasavdatta Bhatt on behalf of GSRTC for Respondent No.1
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 considered the
photocopies of the relevant evidence produced by the
appellants.
C/FA/1481/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/11/2021
8.1. Having heard learned advocate for the parties and upon
re-appreciation of oral and documentary evidence particularly
the salary slip, the gross total salary of deceased was Rs.9733/-
for the year 1992. The deceased was also having agricultural
income, therefore the income of the deceased would be taken
at Rs.10,000/- p.m. There are five dependents, therefore the
deduction of 1/4th is required for personal and living expenses.
The deceased was aged 50 years and 5 months, therefore
future prospective income is to be calculated at 15%. For
other heads, we have considered the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma and Ors. (supra)
and Pranay Sethi and Ors. Having come to the aforesaid
conclusion, therefore, the appellants would be entitled to
compensation under the head of future loss of income as
under:
"Rs.10,000/- p.m. (income) - 2500 (1/4th of Personal and
living expenses) = Rs.7,500/- + Rs 1125/- (15% Future
Prospective income) = Rs.8625/- x 12 (pa) =103500 x 11
(Multiplier as the age of the deceased was 50 years) =
Rs.11,38,500/-."
9. Following the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur (supra) , the
appellants would also be entitled to parental consortium to the
extent of Rs.40,000/- each to two minor children 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 and transportation expenses.
C/FA/1481/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/11/2021
10. Having come to the aforesaid conclusion, the appellants
would be entitled to total compensation as under:
Particulars Amount (Rs.)
Future loss of income 11,38,500/-
Loss of consortium and 1,20,000/-
Parental consortium
Loss of Estate 15,000/-
Funeral expenses 15,000/-
Total 12,88,500/-
11. Thus, the appellants - claimants would be entitled to
total compensation of Rs.12,88,500/-. As the Tribunal has
awarded an amount of Rs.7,70,000/-, the respondent -
Insurance Company shall deposit the balance additional amount
of compensation (Rs.12,88,500 - Rs.7,70,000) = Rs.5,18,500/-
with 7.5% interest and proportionate costs 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)
C/FA/1481/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/11/2021
(MAUNA M. BHATT,J)
NAIR SMITA V.
