Gujarat High Court
Chandubhai Chhaganbhai Mali vs Anuja Rampundrik Mankad on 26 April, 2022
Bench: Ashokkumar C. Joshi
C/FA/3857/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3857 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 ?
=======================================
CHANDUBHAI CHHAGANBHAI MALI & 1 other(s)
Versus
ANUJA RAMPUNDRIK MANKAD & 4 other(s)
=======================================
Appearance:
MR MOHSIN HAKIM for MR MTM HAKIM(1190) for the Appellant(s)
No. 1,2
MR VC THOMAS(5476) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
=======================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ASHOKKUMAR C. JOSHI
Date : 26/04/2022
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 arising out of the judgment and award dated
09.07.2014 rendered by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Vadodara (the Tribunal) in Motor Accident Claim
C/FA/3857/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022
Petition No. 1077 of 2007 (claim petition), whereby, the Tribunal
was pleased to award compensation of Rs.3,97,850/- with running
interest at the rate of 9% per annum and proportionate costs
from the date of claim petition till realization, against claim of
Rs.10 lakh made by the appellants - original claimants.
Accordingly, the appellants - original claimants has 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. Minimum is to say that
in a vehicular accident that had occurred 09.03.2007, son of the
appellants - claimants sustained grievous injuries and eventually,
succumbed to the injuries. Accordingly, for the death of the
deceased, the appellants - claimants preferred the aforesaid
claim petition claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.10 lakh.
3. Heard, learned advocate Mr. Mohsin Hakim for learned
advocate Mr. MTM Hakim for the appellants - original claimants
and learned advocate Mr. V. C. Thomas for the respondent No. 3
- insurance company. Though served, nobody appears for the
respondent No. 1 and 2, who are the driver and the owner of the
offending vehicle.
4. The learned advocate for the appellants - claimants
submitted that the Tribunal has materially erred in awarding the
compensation inasmuch as, against the claim of Rs.10 lakh, the
Tribunal has awarded a meager amount of Rs.3,97,850/-. He
submitted that the Tribunal has materially erred in considering
the income of the injured claimant at Rs.3,000/- per month only.
He submitted that the deceased was studying in third year of
B.Com. and had also registered himself for the Common
C/FA/3857/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022
Proficiency Test (CPT) and accordingly, had he been alive, he
would have a bright future, however, the Tribunal has failed to
appreciate the said aspect. The learned advocate for the
appellants further submitted that the Tribunal has gravely erred
in adopting a multiplier of 13 considering the age of the mother
of the deceased i.e. appellant No. 2 herein. He submitted that as
per the settled legal position, multiplier of 18 ought to have been
adopted considering the age of the deceased of 20 years at the
time of accident.
4.1 Moreover, the learned advocate for the appellants -
claimants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in considering
the future rise in income at 50% and deducting 1/2 towards
personal expenses of the deceased. Further, it is submitted that
the Tribunal has erred in awarding a very trivial amount under
the conventional heads. Further, it is submitted that the rate of
interest awarded is also on the lower side.
4.2 Thus, making such submissions, the learned advocate for
the appellant has urged to enhance the compensation suitably
and thereby, to allow this appeal.
5. Per contra, while opposing the present appeal, the learned
advocate for the respondent No. 3 - insurance company
submitted that the Tribunal has rightly awarded the
compensation considering the notional income of the deceased @
Rs.3,000/- per month, and has rightly awarded compensation
under different heads, which is as per the settled legal position,
and accordingly, it is submitted that no interference is called for
in this appeal at the hands of this Court and it requires to be
dismissed.
C/FA/3857/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022
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.3,97,850/- under different heads.
So far as the facts of the accident are concerned, there is no
dispute. However, the learned advocate for the appellants -
claimants has disputed the income of the deceased as assessed
by the Tribunal at Rs.3,000/-. The learned advocate for the
appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has awarded a meager
amount under different heads. Further, it has been submitted
that the Tribunal has wrongly adopted the multiplier considering
the age of the mother instead of deceased and has also erred in
considering future prospective income @ 50% and deducting 1/2
towards personal expenses and so on. In this regard, if the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is referred to, it can be
summarized as under:
Head Amt. (Rs.)
Future economic loss (Rs.3,000 + 1,500 3,51,000/-
(Rs.3,000 x 50%) = 4,500 x 12 = 54,000 x 1/2
= Rs.27,000 x 13 (multiplier)
Medical Expenses 10,850/-
Pain, shock and suffering 10,000/-
Transportation Charges 1,000/-
Loss of love and affection 20,000/-
Funeral Charges 5,000/-
Total 3,97,850/-
6.1 Referring to the impugned judgment and award, it appears
that the Tribunal has considered the income of the appellant -
claimant at Rs.3,000/- per month for want of any documentary
evidence, which appears to have been rightly assessed. Further,
C/FA/3857/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022
the Tribunal has considered the future prospective income @
50%, which, according to the decision in National Insurance
Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others, MANU/SC/1366/2017
and Pappu Deo Yadav v. Naresh Kumar and Ors.,
MANU/SC/0696/2020, ought to have been considered at 40%
for the age group up to 40 years, for self-employed/fixed salary
persons. Further, in view of the decision in Sarla Verma and
Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Others, MANU/
SC/0606/2009, considering the fact that the deceased was
bachelor at the time of accident, 1/2 amount is required to be
deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased.
6.2 Further, so far as the multiplier is concerned, the Tribunal
has adopted a multiplier of 13 considering the age of the mother
of the deceased and thereby, has erred in doing so. In view of
the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma (supra), for the
age group of 15-20, a multiplier of 18 is required to be applied.
Indisputably, the claimant was aged 20 years at the time of
accident and accordingly, the multiplier of 18 is required to be
adopted.
6.3 Besides, considering the decision in Pranay Sethi (supra),
under the conventional heads viz. loss of consortium, loss of
estate and funeral expenses Rs.40,000/- (to each dependent),
Rs.15,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively, are required to be
awarded, with 10% rise every three years.
6.4 So far as loss of love and affection is concerned, no
separate amount is required to be awarded in view of the
decision of the Apex Court in The New India Assurance Co.
Ltd. and Others v. Somwati and Others, MANU/SC/0674/
C/FA/3857/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022
2020.
6.5 Thus, in view of the above, present appeal requires to be
allowed and is accordingly, allowed in part. The appellants -
original claimants are entitled to following compensation under
the different heads as narrated herein below, and to that extent,
the impugned judgment and award stands modified:
Head Granted by Required to be
Tribunal (Rs.) granted (Rs.)
Income of the deceased (per 36,000/- 36,000/-
annum)
Future Prospective Income 18,000/- 14,400/-
@ 50% @ 40%
Total 54,000/- 50,400/-
Minus: Personal Expenses 27,000/- 25,200/-
of the deceased @ 1/2
Future Loss of Income 3,51,000/- 4,53,600/-
Loss of Consortium (filial - 88,000/-
consortium - 2 dependents),
Rs.40,000/- each, with 10%
rise per three years
Loss of Estate with 10% rise - 16,500/-
per three years
Funeral Charges with 10% 5,000/- 16,500/-
rise per three years
Medical Expenses 10,850/- 10,850/-
Pain, shock and suffering 10,000/- 10,000/-
Transportation Charges 1,000/- 1,000/-
Loss of love and affection 20,000/- -
Total Compensation 3,97,850/- 5,96,450/-
Differential amount 1,98,600/-
6.6 Thus, the appellants - original claimants shall be entitled for
an enhanced amount of compensation to the tune of
C/FA/3857/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/04/2022
Rs.1,98,600/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on such
enhanced amount of compensation, which shall be from the date
of award of the Tribunal. The rest of the judgment and award
shall remain intact. R&P, if received, be sent back forthwith.
[ A. C. Joshi, J. ]
hiren
