Gujarat High Court
Reliance General Insurance ... vs Pareshbhai Ghusabhai Satani on 14 December, 2022
Bench: A.Y. Kogje
C/FA/539/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/12/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 539 of 2018
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE Sd/-
=============================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see NO
the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the NO
judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as NO
to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any
order made thereunder ?
=============================================
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
Versus
PARESHBHAI GHUSABHAI SATANI & 3 other(s)
=============================================
Appearance:
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
for the Defendant(s) No. 3
MR MAULIK J SHELAT(2500) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
MR. HEMAL SHAH(6960) for the Defendant(s) No. 4
SERVED BY AFFIX(N) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE
Date : 14/12/2022
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The Insurance Company is the appellant before this Court against the
C/FA/539/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/12/2022
judgment and award dated 25-09-2017 passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Rajkot in MACP No.1181 of 2010.
2. Learned Advocate for the Insurance Company submitted that the
Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.4,200/-
against the earning claimed by the claimant to the extent of Rs.5,000/-.
It is the say of the learned Advocate that considering the evidence on
record that the claimant was doing labour work of watch fitting and
tuitions as income assessed ought not to have been more than
Rs.3,000/-. The Appellant has also contested the application of
multiplier of 18 and also contested the compensation under the head of
pain, shock & suffering and actual loss of income.
3. Learned Advocate for the respondent-claimant has opposed the petition
by submitting that considering the claimant's qualification, amount of
monthly income assessed is just and proper and consonance with the
rate of Minimum Wages applicable in the State of Gujarat. It is also
submitted that considering the age of the claimant being 19 years and 1
month at the date and time of accident, the multiplier is also in
consonance with the decision of the Apex Court in case of Sarla Verma
versus Delhi Transport Corporation reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. He
has also taken this Court through the injury sustained and submitted
that pain, shock & suffering and actual loss of income is correctly
assessed.
4. Having considered the rival submissions of the parties and having
perused the documents on record, it appears that MACP No.1181 of
2010 was part of the group of claim petitions, where by a common
award, the Tribunal has decided 7 claim petitions. From the record, it is
evident that except for the claim petition in the present case, the
remaining 6 claim petitions are not challenged by the Insurance
Company and therefore, the Court is not required to examine the
negligence in the present case, though was mildly submitted by the
C/FA/539/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/12/2022
learned Advocate for the appellant.
5. On the argument with regard to the assessment of monthly income, it
would be pertinent to observe that the Tribunal has considered the
evidence on record in the form of deposition of the claimant herself,
where she has stated that she was doing labour work of watch fitting
and also doing tuition work, as she had educational qualification of
M.Com. Part-2. Over and above, if the rate of Minimum Wages in the
State of Gujarat is considered as on the date of accident, the same
would indicate that it is fixed at Rs.4,200/- and that is the amount
which the Tribunal has assessed to be the income of the claimant and
therefore, in the opinion of the Court, the monthly income of the
claimant assessed is just and proper.
6. With regard to contention raised of applicability of the multiplier of 18
to be on a higher side, it would be pertinent to observe that the
Tribunal has taken into consideration both the Certificates vide Exh-87
to indicate the date of birth to be of 11-05-1991 and therefore, on the
date of accident on 17-06-2010, the age of the claimant was 19 years
and 1 month. In that view of the matter applying directly multiplier
adopted under the decision of the Apex Court in case of Sarla Verma
versus Delhi Transport Corporation reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, the
Court is of the view that multiplier applied of 18 is just and proper.
7. Yet another contention raised by the appellant is of grant of higher
compensation under the head of pain, shock and suffering as well as
loss of actual income, it would be pertinent to observe that the injury as
recorded by the Tribunal and described in Para-23 is pertaining to
Faciomaxillary injury (fracture of mandible right angle) with cervical
spine injury (cord contusion C-5 to D-1 vertebrae with quadruparesis)
with chest injury (fracture of 1 st, 2nd and 3rd ribs with clavicle with
fracture scapula left side and fracture of 1 st, 2nd and 3rd rib on right side
and disability. Looking to the nature of injury as recorded above, the
C/FA/539/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/12/2022
claimant was out of work for a period of 4 months and that therefore,
towards pain, shock & suffering as well as loss of actual income, the
assessment by the Tribunal is just and proper and is not required to be
interfered with.
8. The Court has also observed that the extent of disability has been
decided on the basis of consensus given by both the parties to the extent
of 35% of the body as a whole and therefore also there cannot be any
interference with the compensation under the head of pain, shock &
suffering as well as loss of actual income.
9. The Court therefore finds that the total compensation awarded by the
Tribunal is just and proper and does not require any interference.
10. In view of the aforesaid, this Appeal deserves to and is hereby
dismissed.
11. The Tribunal shall disburse the entire awarded amount lying in the FDR
and/or with the Tribunal, with accrued interest thereon, if any, to the
claimant, by account payee cheque, after proper verification and after
following due procedure.
12. While making the payment, the Tribunal shall deduct the courts fees, if
not paid, in the claim petition, in accordance with rules/law.
13. Record and proceedings of the appeal be sent back to the concerned
Tribunal, forthwith.
Sd/-
(A.Y. KOGJE, J)
PARESH SOMPURA
