Gujarat High Court
Virabhai Punjabhai Gujarati ... vs Abhesinh Rupabhai Ghori on 14 December, 2022
Bench: Hemant M. Prachchhak
C/FA/2385/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/12/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2385 of 2018
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
================================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed NO
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy NO
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question NO
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
================================================================
VIRABHAI PUNJABHAI GUJARATI (MALI) & 3 other(s)
Versus
ABHESINH RUPABHAI GHORI & 3 other(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR MAKBUL I MANSURI(2694) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
for the Defendant(s) No. 1,3.1
ABATED for the Defendant(s) No. 3.2
MRS VASAVDATTA BHATT(193) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 4
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK
Date : 14/12/2022
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present Appeal is filed by the appellants - original
claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation amount
C/FA/2385/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/12/2022
awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Dahod
(hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") vide impugned
judgment and award dated 19.05.2017 passed in M.A.C.P.
No.1116 of 2004 (New) and M.A.C.P. No.1103 of 1994 (Old),
whereby the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition and
awarded a sum of Rs.59,864/-.
2. Brief facts of the present case are that, on 26.02.1994,
the mother of the present appellant No.1 and others were
returning from Fatepura to Limdi in the evening after selling
their vegetables. At that time, the mother of the appellant No.4
and other fruit venders had hired a Tempo bearing registration
No.GJ-17-T-4201, which was driven by the deceased Zahidbeg
(respondent No.3 herein). He was driving the Tempo at a
limited speed and and on the left side of the road At that time,
the respondent No.1 - driver of the S.T. Bus bearing
registration No.GJ-01-T-9179 came from opposite side,
overtook the bullock-cart and came on wrong side and dashed
with the Tempo of the respondent No.3 and due to which the
accident occurred. In the result, the mother of the applicant
No.1 and others sustained serious injuries and the mother of
the respondent No.4 died during treatment. Hence, the
C/FA/2385/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/12/2022
appellants - original claimants have filed M.A.C.P. No.1116 of
2004 (New) and M.A.C.P. No.1103 of 1994 (Old) before the
Tribunal. The Tribunal, after evaluating the pleadings and
evidence tendered by the parties, partly allowed the claim
petition and awarded a sum of Rs.59,864/- under different
heads as against the claim of Rs.5,00,000/-.
3. It came to be held by the Tribunal that said amount was
ordered to be awarded to the deponents. Not being satisfied
with the compensation amount, this appeal has been filed.
4. Heard Mr.Makbul Mansuri, the learned counsel appearing
for the appellants and Mrs.Vasavdatta Bhatt, the learned
counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 - Gujarat State
Road Transport Corporation.
5. Mr.Mansuri, the learned counsel appearing for the
appellants has submitted the same facts which are narrated in
the memo of appeal. He has submitted that the Tribunal has
not properly appreciated the income of the appellants while
determining the quantum. He has submitted that the Tribunal
has not properly determined the income of the appellants
C/FA/2385/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/12/2022
while coming to the conclusion to award the compensation. It
was further submitted that the Tribunal has also committed an
error by not applying proper multiplier. It was submitted that
the Tribunal has not awarded the amount under the head of
consortium. He further submitted that the Tribunal has also
committed an error by not applying proper multiplier. He
further submitted that at the time of accident, the lower court
has failed to consider prospective income and adverse effect
on the said prospective income and hence, the Tribunal has
committed an error on all other grounds raised in the memo of
appeal and has sought modification of the impugned judgment
and award and enhancement of the compensation awarded by
the Tribunal.
6. As against that Mrs.Bhatt, the learned counsel appearing
for respondent - S.T. Corporation has strongly objected the
present appeal and submitted that since there was no
documentary evidence with regard to the income and with
regard to the proof of the age of the deceased and therefore,
without there being any cogent and documentary evidence,
the Tribunal has rightly passed the impugned judgment and
award and no interference is required to be called for and
C/FA/2385/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/12/2022
prayed that the present appeal may be dismissed.
7. Having considered the averments made in the appeal,
submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both
the sides and considered the facts of the case and perused the
record and proceedings, it appears that the accident took
place between Tempo, Rickshaw and S.T. Bus and at that time,
the deceased was travelling in the Tempo and succumbed to
the injuries because of the said accident. Considering the age
and the fact that she was working as a vegetable vendor, so
her income should be considered as per the minimum wages
under the Minimum Wages Act i.e. Rs.400/- per month. Thus,
her future prospective income is required to be considered @
25% and so far as personal expenditure is concerned, it is to
be considered as 1/ 4th since there are 5 number of dependents
and the Tribunal has rightly awarded the multiplier of 11 and
therefore, the same remains unaltered. Considering all these
aspects, the present appeal deserves to be allowed in part and
the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is
required to be modified to the extent.
8. Considering the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
C/FA/2385/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/12/2022
Court in the case of Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation and another, reported in [2009]
6 SCC 121 and in case of National Insurance Company
Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, reported in [2017]
16 SCC 680, the compensation is to be awarded just and
adequate and for that the principles enumerated in the said
judgments is required to be born in mind at the time of
determining the amount of compensation. So far as the
consortium is concerned, considering the decision of the Apex
Court in case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited
Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others, (2018) 18 SCC
130, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Somwati and
others, (2020) 9 SCC 644 and United India Insurance
Company Limited Vs. Satinder Kaur alias Satwinder
Kaur and others, AIR 2020 SC 3076, the appellants are also
entitled to receive the amount under the head of consortium.
Hence, considering all the above aspects and after going
through the record and proceedings, the appeal requires to be
allowed and the impugned judgment and award requires to be
substituted by enhancing the amount of compensation and,
therefore, the compensation is enhanced under the following
heads:-
C/FA/2385/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/12/2022
Particulars Amount
Loss of Dependency Rs.1,11,408/-
Loss of Consortium Rs.1,20,000/-
Funeral expenses and loss of estate Rs.30,000/-
Total Rs.2,61,408/-
Compensation awarded (-)Rs.59,864/-
Amount to be enhanced Rs.2,01,544/-
9. Accordingly a sum of Rs.2,01,544 /- as additional
compensation requires to be awarded towards future loss of
income, which is just and reasonable compensation and the
same is awarded in addition to Rs.59,864/- awarded by the
Tribunal. However, the appellants are entitled to the enhanced
amount of compensation of Rs.2,01,544 /- along with interest
at the rate of 6% from the date of application till realization of
the amount.
10. For the foregoing reasons, the following order is passed:-
(i) Appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) Judgment and award dated 19.05.2017 passed by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Dahod passed in
C/FA/2385/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/12/2022
M.A.C.P. No.1116 of 2004 (New) and M.A.C.P. No.1103 of
1994 (Old) is hereby modified and in addition to what has
been awarded by the Tribunal, a sum of Rs.2,01,544 as
additional amount with interest at the rate of 6% per
annum is awarded, which shall be from the date of filing
claim petition till date of its realization.
(iii) The respondent No.2 - Gujarat State Road Transport
Corporation is directed to deposit additional amount of
compensation with 6% interest as early as possible within
an outer limit of eight weeks from the date of receipt of
certified copy of this order.
(iv) The apportionment and order for disbursement as
made by the Tribunal in the operative portion of the order
shall hold good for the additional amount of
compensation.
(v) After deposit of the additional amount of
compensation, the same shall be disbursed in favour of
the claimants through RTGS, after proper verification.
The bank account details shall be furnished by the
C/FA/2385/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/12/2022
learned advocate for the claimants to the Nazir
Department of the Court concerned.
(vi) The appellants are directed to pay deficit court fees,
if any, on the enhanced amount within one month from
the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
11. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned
Tribunal forthwith. Pending civil applications, if any, shall stand
disposed of accordingly.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
Dolly
