Gujarat High Court
Varshaben Alias Vasumati ... vs Ranchhodbhai Solanki on 5 August, 2022
Bench: Gita Gopi
C/FA/2485/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2485 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
==========================================================
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 ?
==========================================================
VARSHABEN ALIAS VASUMATI RAMANIKBHAI ALIAS RAMESHBHAI
CHANDEGARA
Versus
RANCHHODBHAI SOLANKI
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) with MR HARSH JOSHI for the Appellant(s) No.
1,2,3,4
for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,4,5
MR GC MAZMUDAR(1193) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
MR HG MAZMUDAR(1194) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
MR RATHIN P RAVAL(5013) for the Defendant(s) No. 6
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI
Date : 05/08/2022
ORAL JUDGMENT
C/FA/2485/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2022
1. Mr. Hiren M. Modi, learned advocate with
Mr. Harsh Joshi, learned advocate for the
appellants submitted that the challenge
has been made to the judgment and award
dated 7.4.2017 passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux), Junagadh
in Motor Accident Claim Petition no.97 of
2012 primarily on the ground that the
deceased was a Carpenter and considering
the date of accident as 6.10.2011, the
income has not been rightly assessed.
2. The facts of the case are that on
6.10.2011, the deceased was proceeding as
passenger in the rickshaw bearing
registration no. GJ-1 XX-7052 driven by
respondent no.4 and was proceeding
towards Keshod and while they had reached
on Keshod-Mangrol road, Nr. Dokamaradi
between 10:00 hrs. to 10:30 hrs. in the
morning, a truck bearing registration no.
GJ-11 V-5247 came in a full speed in a
rash and negligent manner and dashed with
the rickshaw. The deceased sustained
fatal injuries and succumbed to it. The
C/FA/2485/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2022
learned Tribunal, while considering the
issue of negligence, has considered the
case of composite negligence and has made
respondents no.1 to 6 jointly and
severally liable and in Paragraph 15 of
the judgment, the Tribunal has considered
20% negligence of the driver of the
rickshaw and 80% of the driver of the
truck.
3. Mr. Modi submitted that the deceased was
a skilled person and was aged about 42
years and therefore, prospective rise in
income ought to have been considered by
following the judgment in the case of
National Insurance Company Limited Vs.
Pranay Sethi & Ors., reported in (2017)
16 SCC 680. He further submitted that
consortium amount ought to have been
granted in accordance with the decision
in the case of Magma General Insurance
Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru
Ram & Ors., reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130
under conventional heads.
C/FA/2485/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2022
4. While countering the same, learned
advocates Mr. Mazmudar and Mr. Raval
state that the learned Tribunal has
rightly considered the income of the
deceased and that nothing has been
brought on record to enhance the income
assessed by the Tribunal, nor anything
has been brought on record to
substantiate the fact that there are any
likelihood of rise in income of the
deceased.
5. It was contended by the heirs of the
deceased that the deceased was carpenter
and the deceased was maintaining his
family consisting of 4 claimants, which
includes widow, 2 children and aged
mother from his income. The learned
Tribunal considered monthly income as
Rs.3,200/- observing that no income-tax
returns have been filed. The claimants
had urged the earning of the deceased
carpenter at Rs.9,000/- per month.
However, taking into consideration the
date of the accident, it would be just
C/FA/2485/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2022
and proper to consider the income of the
deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month. The age
of the deceased was 42 years, as observed
by the Tribunal and taking into
consideration the proposition of law laid
down in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra),
since the deceased was above 40 years
falling in the age group of 40 to 50
years and was self-employed, addition
towards future prospects is required to
be given to the tune of 25% to the
dependents. Considering the dependents, 4
in number, following the decision in the
case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation & Anr. reported in (2009) 6
SCC 121, one-fourth deduction is required
to be made towards personal expenses. The
claimants, under the head of dependency
loss, would be entitled to get
compensation of Rs.7,08,793/-, the
calculation of which is as under:-
Rs.4,500/- Monthly income
+ Rs.1,125/- 25% prospective income
= Rs.5,625/- Monthly income
C/FA/2485/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2022
- Rs.1,406/- One-fourth personal
expenses
= Rs.4,219/- Monthly income
x 12 Yearly
= Rs.50,628/- Yearly income
x 14 Multiplier
= Rs.7,08,792/- Compensation under the
head of loss of
dependency
6. The claimants are 4 in number, which
includes widow, 2 children and mother.
Thus, following the judgment in the case
of Magma General Insurance Company
Limited Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram &
Ors., reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130, each
claimant would be entitled to Rs.40,000/-
under the head of loss of consortium and
therefore, total amount of compensation
would come to Rs.1,60,000/- (Rs.40,000 X
4) and the amounts under the head of
funeral expenses and loss to estate would
be Rs.15,000/- under each head. Thus,
adding the amount under conventional
heads, the claimants would be entitled to
total compensation of Rs.8,98,792/-, the
calculation of which is as under:-
C/FA/2485/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2022
Rs.7,08,792/- Compensation under the
head of loss of
dependency
+ Rs.1,60,000/- Loss of consortium
(Rs.40,000/- X 4)
+ Rs.15,000/- Funeral expenses
+ Rs.15,000/- Loss to estate
= Rs.8,98,792/- Total compensation
7. The Tribunal has already awarded
Rs.5,03,200/- towards compensation. Thus,
the enhanced amount would be
Rs.3,95,592/- (Rs.8,98,792/- -
Rs.5,03,200/-), which the claimants would
be entitled to recover from the
respondents no.1 to 6 jointly and
severally. Both the insurance Companies
are directed to deposit the said amount
in accordance with the negligence
apportioned by the Tribunal concerned.
The enhanced amount is to be deposited at
the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date
of the application; while the amount so
granted by the Tribunal is to be
deposited at the rate of 9% per annum
granted by the Tribunal. Award be
C/FA/2485/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2022
modified accordingly. Thus, the appeal is
partly allowed in the above terms.
(GITA GOPI,J)
Maulik
