Gujarat High Court
Kokilaben Dhanjibhai Vasava vs Nanjibhai Ukkadbhai Vasava on 14 December, 2022
Bench: A.S. Supehia
C/FA/4252/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/12/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4252 of 2018
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA sd/-
==========================================================
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 ?
==========================================================
KOKILABEN DHANJIBHAI VASAVA
Versus
NANJIBHAI UKKADBHAI VASAVA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR R.K.MANSURI(3205) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7
KRISHNAN M GHAVARIYA(8133) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
MR. RAHUL R DHOLAKIA(6765) for the Defendant(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
Date : 14/12/2022
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal is filed by the appellants - claimants
against the judgment and award dated 05.07.2018 passed by
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Nadiad in M.A.C.P.
No.427 of 2011, whereby the Tribunal has allowed the claim
petition and awarded Rs.7,18,261/- towards the compensation
to the claimants.
C/FA/4252/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/12/2022
2. The appellants had filed Motor Accident Claim Petition
No.427 of 2011 before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal
(Auxi.), Nadiad, claiming the compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-
under the different heads for the accidental death of husband
of the appellant No.1 and father of the appellant Nos.2 and 5
and son of the appellant No.6 in the accident.
3. Learned advocate Mr.Mansuri, has submitted that the
Tribunal has committed grave error in considering the income
only of Rs.3,100/- p.m. since the appellant is doing labour
work, at least his income should be assessed and fixed at
Rs.4,210/- as per the norms prescribed by the State of Gujarat
under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for the period from
01.10.2010 to 31.03.2011, since the fatal accident has
occurred on 28.01.2011. Learned advocate Mr.Mansuri, has
further submitted that the prospective income accordingly
was required to be considered by the Tribunal and fixed.
Learned advocate Mr.Mansuri, has further submitted that as
per the decision of the Apex Court in the case of National
Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and ors. [AIR 2017
SC 5157], the Tribunal ought to have fixed the compensation.
Thus, it is submitted that the impugned judgment and award
passed by the Tribunal is required to be modified accordinlgy.
4. Per contra, learned advocate Mr.Dholakia, appearing for
the respondent No.3 and the learned advocate Mr.Ghavariya,
appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 have submitted that
the impugned judgment and award does not require any
interference since the same is appropriately passed by the
C/FA/4252/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/12/2022
Tribunal. The only issue, which requires to be considered in the
first appeal is with regard to fixation of the income of the
deceased, which is assessed and fixed at Rs.3,100/- and the
loss of consortium, which awarded to Rs.40,000/-. It is
established on record that the deceased was doing the labour
work, however no income proof in this regard were produced.
As per the settled proposition of law, in absence of such proof
of income, the wages, which are fixed by the State
Government under the Minimum Wages Act, is required to be
fixed. It is not in dispute that for the period from 01.10.2010 to
31.03.2011, the wages of a labourer (unskilled category) was
fixed at Rs.4,210/- including D.A. and hence, instead of
Rs.3,100/- the wages of the deceased is required to be fixed at
Rs.4,210/-.
5. So far as the loss of consortium is concerned, the
Tribunal has awarded only Rs.40,000/-. It is established that
there were six members of the family and hence, the amount,
which is awarded towards consortium to Rs.40,000/- is
required to be given to each member of the family, which
would be Rs.40,000/- X 6 = Rs.2,40,000/-.
6. The income is assessed and the additional compensation,
which would be just and proper, looking to the facts of this
case, is determined as under: -
S.No. Particulars Amount
1. Income Rs.4,210/-
2. Prospective Rs.1,684/-
Total Income Rs.5,894/-
Multiply by 12 (Rs.5894/-X12) Rs.70,728/-
C/FA/4252/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/12/2022
1/4 deduction (Rs.17682/-) Rs.53,046/-
Multiply by 16 (Rs.53,046 X16) Rs.8,48,736/-
3. Loss of Consortium Rs.2,40,000/-
4. Medical Expenses Rs.23,301/-
5. Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/-
6. Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/-
7. Total compensation Rs.11,42,037/-
8. Amount awarded by the Tribunal Rs.7,18,361/-
9. Enhanced amount Rs.4,23,776/- @
6% interest
7. Thus, the total compensation is fixed to Rs.11,42,037/-
and after deducting the amount which was awarded by the
Tribunal Rs.7,18,361/-, the additional amount come to
Rs.4,23,776/-. Thus, the appellant would be entitled to the
additional amount of Rs.4,23,776/- with 6% interest from the
date of filing of the claim petition till the realization of the
amount. The same shall be deposited before the Tribunal
within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of writ of
this order and accordingly, the same shall be disbursed to the
claimants after due verification.
8. In view of the above, the first appeal is partly allowed.
Accordingly, the impugned judgment and award passed by the
Tribunal is modified to the aforesaid extent.
9. Record and proceedings shall be returned to the
concerned Tribunal forthwith.
sd/-
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
MB/ 19
