Gujarat High Court
Sanjaykumar Harmanbhai Patel vs Salimbhai Ahmadbhai Divan on 19 April, 2022
Bench: Ashokkumar C. Joshi
C/FA/3328/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/04/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3328 of 2014
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ASHOKKUMAR C. JOSHI
=======================================
Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be
1 NO
allowed to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? YES
Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
3 NO
of the judgment ?
Whether this case involves a substantial question
4 of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution NO
of India or any order made thereunder ?
=======================================
SANJAYKUMAR HARMANBHAI PATEL & 1 other(s)
Versus
SALIMBHAI AHMADBHAI DIVAN & 2 other(s)
=======================================
Appearance:
MR MTM HAKIM(1190) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MR PALAK H THAKKAR(3455) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
=======================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ASHOKKUMAR C. JOSHI
Date : 19/04/2022
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 arising out of the judgment and award dated
22.01.2014 rendered by the learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (Auxi.), Vadodara (the Tribunal) in Motor Accident Claim
Petition No. 1128 of 2006 (claim petition), whereby, the Tribunal
C/FA/3328/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/04/2022
was pleased to award compensation of Rs.3,03,000/- with simple
interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of claim
petition till realization and cost against the total claim of Rs.20
lakh as claimed by the appellants - original claimants towards the
death of the deceased. Accordingly, the appellants have
preferred this appeal for enhancement of compensation.
2. Since the facts of the accident are not in dispute, the Court
deems it proper not to discuss the same. Least is to say that on
26.06.2006, the deceased was travelling in a bus bearing
registration No. GJ-6-X-9644, which, as per the case of the
claimants, turned turtle due to rash and negligent driving of the
driver of the bus due to which, the deceased sustained grievous
injuries and eventually, succumbed to the injuries, for which, the
claimants filed the aforesaid claim petition claiming
compensation to the tune of Rs.20 lakh.
3. Heard, learned advocate Mr. Mohsin Hakim for learned
advocate Mr. MTM Hakim for the appellants and learned advocate
Mr. Palak Thakkar for the respondent No. 3. Though served,
nobody appears for the respondent No. 1 and 2, who are the
driver and the owner of the offending vehicle. Since, the liability
is not in dispute, the Court proceeded with the matter.
4. The learned advocate for the appellants submitted that the
Tribunal has materially erred in awarding such a trivial amount of
Rs.3,03,000/- towards compensation for the death of the
deceased as against the claim of Rs.20 lakh. He submitted that
the Tribunal has erred in not considering the monthly expenses of
Rs.2,000/- incurred by the appellants for hiring the services of
employee, which the deceased used to do. Further, it is
C/FA/3328/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/04/2022
submitted that the Tribunal has erred in considering future
prospective income at 30% only, while computing the future loss
of income.
4.1 The learned advocate for the appellants further submitted
that the Tribunal has further erred in awarding Rs.25,000/- only
towards loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- only towards funeral
expenses and not awarding any amount towards the loss of
consortium. Further, it is submitted that the Tribunal has also
erred in not awarding any amount towards loss of love and
affection and loss of expectations of life as well as in applying the
multiplier of 14.
4.2 Moreover, it is submitted that the Tribunal has also erred in
awarding interest at the rate of 9% per annum only.
4.3 Thus, making above submissions, it is urged that this
appeal may be allowed and amount of compensation may be
enhanced suitably.
5. Per contra, while opposing the present appeal, the learned
advocate for the respondent No. 3 - insurance company
submitted that in view of settled law laid down by the Apex Court
in the decisions in Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi
Transport Corporation and Others, MANU/SC/0606/2009
and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and
Others, MANU/SC/1366/2017, the Tribunal has rightly awarded
the compensation considering the income of the deceased, under
different heads and accordingly, this appeal being bereft of any
merits, deserves to be dismissed.
C/FA/3328/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/04/2022
6. Regard being had to the submissions made and considering
the impugned judgment and award so also the material available
on record vis-a-vis the settled legal position on the subject, it
appears that for the death of the deceased, the Tribunal has
awarded compensation of Rs.3,03,000/- under different heads.
So far as the facts of the accident are concerned, there is no
dispute. The learned advocate for the appellants - claimants has
submitted that the Tribunal has awarded a meager amount under
different heads and/or not awarding any amount under the heads
of loss of love and affection and expectation of life. Further, it is
submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier of
14 only considering the age of the deceased. In this regard, if the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is referred to, it can be
summarized as under:
Head Amt. (Rs.)
Loss of Dependency Benefit 2,73,000/-
Loss of Estate 25,000/-
Funeral Expenses 5,000/-
Total 3,03,000/-
6.1 In the aforesaid background, so far as the income of the
deceased is concerned, it was the case of the appellants -
claimants that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000 to 12,000/-
per month. The deceased was having agriculture income as also
income from animal husbandry. However, the Tribunal,
considering the fact that there were seven co-owners and the
fact that no other documentary evidence was produced,
considered the income of the deceased at Rs.30,000/- per annum
and deducting 1/2, took the income of the deceased at
Rs.15,000/- per annum. In the opinion of the Court, the Tribunal
has assessed the income of the deceased on lower side, more
C/FA/3328/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/04/2022
particularly, when it was the specific case of the claimants that
the deceased was having agricultural land and revenue record
was also produced on record and that, the deceased was also
earning from animal husbandry. Accordingly, the Tribunal ought
to have assessed the income of the deceased at least to
Rs.36,000/- per month. Further, considering the age of the
deceased at 45 years at the time of the accident, the Tribunal
has added 30% towards future prospective income, which, as per
the decision in Pranay Sethi (supra), when the deceased was
self-employed, ought to have 25% for the age group of the
deceased. Besides, considering the number of claimants/
dependents, 1/3rd amount is required to be deducted towards
personal expenses of the deceased. Further, in view of age of
the deceased i.e. 45 years at the time of accident, as per the
decision in Sarla Verma (supra), the Tribunal has rightly
considered the multiplier of 14. Besides, as per the decision in
Pranay Sethi (supra), under the conventional heads viz. loss of
estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses, an amount of
Rs.15,000/- Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively under each
head is required to be awarded with 10% rise every three years
and accordingly, the award is required to be modified to that
extent also.
6.2 Thus, in view of the above, present appeal requires to be
allowed and is accordingly, allowed in part. The appellant -
original claimants are entitled to following amount towards
compensation under different heads, and to that extent, the
impugned judgment and award is to be modified:
Head Granted by Required to be
Tribunal (Rs.) granted (Rs.)
Income of the 30,000/- 36,000/-
C/FA/3328/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/04/2022
Head Granted by Required to be
Tribunal (Rs.) granted (Rs.)
deceased p.a. (Rs.3,000 p.m. x 12)
Add: 9,000/- 9,000/-
Future Prospective @30% @25%
Income
(A) 39,000/- 45,000/-
Minus: 19,500/- 15,000/-
Personal Expenses @ 1/2 @ 1/3rd
Dependency 19,500/- 30,000/-
Benefit = (A)-(B)
Loss of Dependency 2,73,000/- 4,20,000/-
(19,500x14) (30,000x14)
Loss of Estate 25,000/- 16,500/-
Loss of Consortium -- 44,000/-
Funeral Expense 5,000/- 16,500/-
Total 3,03,000/- 4,97,000/-
Compensation
Enhanced 1,94,000/-
compensation
6.3 Thus, the claimants shall be entitled for compensation of
Rs.4,97,000/- towards the death of the deceased. Further, the
claimants shall be entitled for simple interest at the rate of 6%
per annum on enhanced amount of compensation viz.
Rs.1,94,000/- (Rs.4,97,000-3,03,000) from the date of award.
The rest of the judgment and award shall remain intact. R&P, if
received, be sent back forthwith.
[ A. C. Joshi, J. ]
hiren
