Gujarat High Court
Chetnaben Maganbhai Vadi ... vs Manohardas Laxminarayan Bairagi on 27 September, 2021
Bench: A.G.Uraizee
C/FA/1407/2020 ORDER DATED: 27/09/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1407 of 2020
================================================================
CHETNABEN MAGANBHAI VADI (CHAUHAN)
Versus
MANOHARDAS LAXMINARAYAN BAIRAGI
================================================================
Appearance:
MR VIJAL P DESAI(5505) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MS ISHITA V DESAI(5975) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3
MR RATHIN P RAVAL(5013) for the Defendant(s) No. 4
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.G.URAIZEE
Date : 27/09/2021
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard Mr. Desai, learned advocate for the
appellant and Mr. Ranthil Raval, learned advocate for
the respondent No.4-Insurance Company. Presence of
other respondents are not necessary for disposal of this
appeal.
2. The issue involved in this appeal lies in a narrow
campass. The appeal is, therefore, taken up for final
disposal at the admission stage with the consent of
learned advocates for the contesting parties.
3. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, ('M.V. Act' for short) is preferred by the
claimants for enhancement of compensation awarded to
them by MACT (Main), Dahod in MACP No.337/2008
vide judgment and award dated 3.04.2018.
4. Mr. Desai, learned advocate for the appellant
original claimants submits that the tribunal has
C/FA/1407/2020 ORDER DATED: 27/09/2021
adopted incorrect rate of minimum wages prevailing at
the time of accident. He submits that the tribunal
ought to have considered Rs.2800/- as monthly income
of the claimant instead of Rs.1728/- per month as per
the prevailing minimum wages at the time of accident
for unskilled labourer. He, therefore, urges that the
present appeal may be allowed and the compensation
available to the appellant claimant may be assessed on
the baiss of monthly income at the rate of Rs.2800/-
5. Mr. Ranthil Raval, learned advocate for the
Insurance Company has supported the impugned
judgment. He stoutly submits that the claimants have
not produced any evidence regarding the income of the
deceased. In such a scenario, the tribunal has correctly
assess the monthly income of the deceased on the basis
of prevailing rates of minimum wages for unskilled
labourer. He, therefore, urges that the impugned
judgment does not call for interference. He submits
that in case this Court comes to the conclusion that
the claimants are entitled to enhancement in the
compensation, the interest may not be awarded on the
enhanced compensation for the period of delay.
6. I have considered the rival submissions and have
also perused the impugned judgment and award.
7. It emerges from the impugned judgment and
award that the tribunal has recorded a finding that the
deceased was an unskilled labourer. As the claimants
C/FA/1407/2020 ORDER DATED: 27/09/2021
did not produced any cogent and convincing evidence
regarding the monthly income of the deceased, the
tribunal had no other alternative to assess his income
on the basis of minimum wages prevailing at the
relevant time for unskilled labourer.
8. The only question which falls for consideration in
this appeal is whether the tribunal has considered the
correct minumum wages for unskilled labourer to
determine the monthly income of deceased or not.
9. It emerges from the impugned judgment that the
tribunal has come to the conclusion that deceased was
an unskilled labourer and as there was no convincing
and cogent proofe of his income, the monthly income
is assessed on the basis of minimum wages prevailing
at the relevant time for unskilled labourer. I think that
the calculation of the monthly income of the deceased
who unskilled labourer on the basis of minimum wages
is not correct even Schedule-A to Section 163-A of
M.V. Act provides for Rs.15,000/- per annum as
nontional monthly income of no earning person.
Accordingly, notional monthly income of a non earning
person comes to Rs.1250/-. The contention of Mr.
Raval, learned advocate that the tribunal has not
committed any error in assessing monthlyincome of the
deceased cannot be sustained. I am, therefore, of the
view that considering the year of accident the tribunal
ought to have at least considered Rs.2800/- as the
monthly income of the deceased for determining the
C/FA/1407/2020 ORDER DATED: 27/09/2021
compensation available to the claimants.
10. Accordingly, the compensation assessed by the
tribunal needs to be reassessed and recalculated as
under:-
Awarded by Ld. Tribunal Revised Calculation
Proportionate Income Income Rs.2800/-+25%=Rs.3500/-
Rs.1728/-+25%(Rs.432)=Rs.2160/- Perspective Income Rs.3500-
Rs.875=Rs.2625/-
Personal Expenses Deducation- Personal Expense Deduction
1/4x13=540/- Rs.2625x12x13=4,09,500/-
Rs.2160- +Rs.70,000/-Rs.4,79,500/-
Rs.540=1620x12x13=2,52,720/-
Loss of Dependency-Rs.2,52,720/- Enhanced Compensation-
Rs.1,56,780/-
Conventional Amount-Rs.70,000/-
Total-Rs.3,22,720/-
11. The appellant claimants are, therefore, entitled to
Rs.4,79,500/- as compensation in place of
Rs.3,22,720/-. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled
to Rs.1,56,780/- as additional compensation.
12. The submission of Mr. Raval, learned advocate
that the interest may not be awarded on the enhanced
amount for a period of delay which has occurred in
preferring the appeal. It emerges from the record that
there was a delay of 431 days in preferring this
appeal. While condoning the delay, this Court has vide
order dated 12.03.2020 has observed that it would be
open for Insurance Company to contest the no financial
C/FA/1407/2020 ORDER DATED: 27/09/2021
liability be fastened on it towards interest for the
period which is not attributable to it. I think i must
agree with the submission of Mr. Raval, learned
advocate there appears to be some endolance on the
parts of claimants in preferring the appeal for which
the financial liability cannot be mulcted of the
Insurance Company. Moreover, in recent times, there is
substantial fell in the rate of interest available on the
fixed deposit receipts of a nationalized bank.
13. The impugned judgment and award was
pronounced by the tribunal on 03.04.2018. The
appellants original claimants preferred present appeal
in this Court along-with delay condonation application
on 13.08.2019. Thus there was a delay of 431 days in
preferring the appeal. As noted in the foregoing while
condoning the delay, this Court has reserved liberty in
favour of the respondent Insurance Company to contest
its liability for payment of interest for a period of
delay which is not attributable to it. Accordingly,
considering the overall facts of the case, I think that
enhanced compensation are carry rate of 7% interest
and 9% awarded by the tribunal except for a period
from 3.4.2018 to 13.8.2018 (431 days).
14. Insurance Company is directed to deposit
enhanced amount of compensation in the tribunal
within six weeks from the date of receipt of certified
copy of this judgment.
C/FA/1407/2020 ORDER DATED: 27/09/2021
15. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed.
Judgment and award dated 03.04.2018 passed by the
MACT (Main), Dahod in MACP No.337/2008 is hereby
modified and the appellant claimants are entitled to
Rs.4,79,500/- as compensation in place of Rs.3,22,720/-
as awarded by the tribunal. Accordingly, the claimants
are entitled to Rs.1,56,780/- as additional
compensation with 7% interest except for a period
from 3.4.2018 to 13.8.2019 (431 days) with
proportionate costs.
16. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
amount of enhanced compensation in the tribunal
within six weeks from the date of receipt of certified
copy o this judgment.
17. Parties are left to bare their own costs.
(A.G.URAIZEE, J)
Manoj
